09/07/2006

Affirmative action

By MARCELO BERABA

A newspaper has the right to take a position against the quota law and the racial equality statute, but the news must maintain balance

Folha is against the quota law and the racial equality statute. The quota law seeks to set aside openings in federal universities for students coming from public schools and for black and indigenous students. And the statute establishes obligatory and voluntary measures - in areas such as education, culture, health, labor markets and news media - to stimulate racial equality.

The two projects have been going through Congress for years and now will become law on account of two manifestos, one in favor and the other against, that became public over the past two weeks by intellectuals and social militants.

Folha is against the racial equality statute, believing that it "promotes a reversal in defining rights based on skin color." The newspaper recognizes that "historic distortions" exist in the treatment that blacks receive in Brazil but believes that the two pieces of legislation damage "the principle of equality for all before the law" and that the government's priority should be to guarantee fundamental education that is public, free and high-quality.

The opinion is expressed in the editorial "Official discrimination," published on Wednesday, and in at least two other editorials published this year.

Up to now, everything is fine. Not only does the newspaper have a right to take a position, but constituents expect it. The problem is how the topic was treated in other parts of the newspaper.

Through the year, Folha published 10 op-ed pieces about the statute and quotas. On the op-ed page, it published three pieces against the affirmative action projects and three in favor. The situation became unbalanced from the four columns by weekly columnist Demétrio Magnoli, one of the signatories of the manifesto against the statute and quotas. The newspaper can allege that the space it edits on the op-ed page maintains balance and that the columnist has every right to express his opinion. That is correct. It is also correct that the final result for the reader is that the newspaper gave more visibility to one position.

But the most serious situation occurred in recent days. On Thursday, June 29, the newspaper published a column by Magnoli ("The fifth international") and the entire manifesto, "All have equal rights in the republic," signed by those who oppose the quota statute. On Monday, the manifesto "In favor of the quota law and racial equality statute" was published. The new document on Tuesday got mistaken treatment by the newspaper which affects the journalistic principles of balance and pluralism.

The following mistakes were committed:

1 - It did not publish the entire manifesto favoring quotas as it did with the one that coincided with the newspaper's opinion.

2 - It did not publish the main points of the statute and quota law to allow readers to arrive at their own conclusions.

3 - It gave superficial treatment to the manifestos, highlighting not the main arguments of each one, but the names of those who signed, which reinforces the tendency to treat serious topics without depth and focus coverage on celebrities and not on ideas.

I made these observations in my internal critique and concluded: "Folha readers are badly informed about a difficult topic which divides society and should be defined succinctly in Congress. The least that the newspaper could do now is to publish the entire manifesto again so readers can be informed and take a position."

On Friday, the newspaper tried to correct the mistakes and balance in coverage. It published a column by Abdias Nascimento favoring quotas ("Affirmative action: the debate as victory"), a story about the progress of the projects in Congress ("Voting on the racial statute will be in 2007"), a graphic about establishing the main measures planned in the statute and two columns that summarized the antagonistic positions contained in the two manifestos.

But it did not publish the entire manifesto favoring the statute and quotas. The reader, if he wants, must seek it on the Internet.

Discussion about racial matters is always difficult. But it is not difficult to do balanced and pluralistic journalistic coverage, which is not allowed to be contaminated by the opinion of the newspaper. Vigilance and willingness are enough.

Headlines during the election

Folha published a week of headlines about the administration of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. I will reproduce them: "Lula helps TV stations with threatened licenses" (Monday), "PT (Workers Party) and PSDB (Brazilian Social Democracy Party) want to change retirement" (Tuesday), "Lula will veto 16.7% increase for retirees" (Wednesday), "Lula's assets double during presidency" (Thursday), and "Lula gives Postal Service to PMDB in exchange for support" (Friday).

It is natural that the newspaper gives more attention to the federal government, even more so during elections. But some readers complain about the insistence and some headlines.

The headlines from Monday and Friday are incontestable. They are two relevant facts. The first, a survey by the newspaper itself, which has followed in a nearly solitary way the distribution of licenses for radio and TV stations with political criteria since the administration of former President José Sarney. The headline on Tuesday was produced using information collected from exports and politicians from the two main parties competing in the presidential elections and was good enough to show a topic that affects all workers, but the politicians avoid taking a position during the elections to not lose their popularity.

As for Wednesday's headline, I saw a problem that I consider serious. I believe that the topic deserves to be the main highlight on the front page, together with the soccer World Cup, but with a different formulation. The newspaper strongly defends the management responsible and the balance for public accounts. It should, therefore, have clarified the fine line and reasons for the presidential veto. As it turned out, it looks as if Folha rejected the veto in the electoral context.

The most contested headline was on Thursday, about Lula's assets. Some readers saw the headline as proof that the newspaper is persecuting the president. Managing Editor Suzana Singer defended the newspaper's choice this way:

"The headline is absolutely correct, based on data furnished by the president himself. The news is relevant for various reasons: it shows a list of Lula's assets and those of his main opponents, it reveals that the president has financial investments in the country with the highest interest rates in the world and shows the growth of his assets over the past four years. These are facts of obvious public interest."

I have no doubt that the topic belonged on the front page. There is, however, at least up to now, no problem in the growth of Lula's assets. As the newspaper itself reported, while it has practically doubled, the growth is compatible with the president's income and should be compared with inflation during the period analyzed. For this reason, I agree with readers who wrote to question the newspaper's headline. It is not justified.

The two cases - the headlines on Wednesday and Thursday - demand better judgment by Folha. A newspaper can't allowed itself to be influenced by the electoral game.

Translation by John Wright