17/04/2005

The Hundred Days War

By MARCELO BERABA

The evaluation of the Serra administration was based on a Datafolha survey. It lacked reporting.

Folha published during the week the results of a Datafolha survey that evaluated the first 100 days of the administration of São Paulo Mayor José Serra of the centrist Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB). This was last Sunday's headline: "After 3 months, Serra had a worse standing than his predecessors."

Together, the newspaper ran stories which compared statements and actions of Serra at the beginning of his administration with his predecessor Marty Suplicy of the left-leaning Workers Party (PT) during the first three months of 2001 ("Serra repeats Marta in first 100 days").

I received messages from readers who believed that the newspaper was condescending toward Serra and others who believed that the newspaper jumped the gun because three months is too short for an evaluation.

These opinions reflect the tension that exists in São Paulo between the PT and PSDB and the demand for balance that comes to the newspaper. For this reason, I make the comparison of the coverage that Folha produced about the 100 first days of Serra's administration with what it did during the same period for Marta Suplicy.

Scarcity

First, coverage in 2001 was more extensive and diversified than now. On that occasion, the newspaper published eight and a half pages in five days; now it was three and a half pages in four days. This important difference could reflect a time of shortage at the newspaper (fewer reporters and less space) as a result of the difference in the behavior of the two politicians.

In 2001, Suplicy was exposed to public evaluation. She gathered the press to present what she considered the strong points at the start of her mandate ("Evaluation of Suplicy omits problematic areas" was the headline in Folha on April 5) and gave a long interview to the newspaper ("Mayor says she won't pay 2 billion real debt") on Sunday, April 8. (That was the equivalent of US $922.5 million at the time)

Besides this, she participated, with mayors of three other cities, in a debate promoted by Folha which was published on April 11 ("Mayors of metropolises criticize federal government").

Serra, to the contrary, avoided the press. The information I have is that the newspaper sought an interview, but he did not grant one. He was willing to talk informally with journalists, but only off the record.

Surveys

Coverage in those two years was based on surveys by Datafolha. This is one of the newspaper's trademarks, but it creates a dependency in journalism that was accentuated this year.

The opinions of São Paulo residents went on the front page of Folha in Sunday editions with equally critical formulations: "São Paulo approves of Suplicy, but sees no improvement" (2001) and "After 3 months, Serra has worse ratings than predecessors" (2005). I will reproduce headlines from the two surveys.

These are the ones about Suplicy in 2001: "São Paulo residents like Suplicy, but believe the city remains same as during Pitta" (referring to her predecessor Celso Pitta), "São Paulo residents see no improvements in neighborhoods," "Mayor's image suffers no erosion" (Sunday), "Population believes it is responsible for flooding" (Monday), "77% want investigation of trash (contracts) in São Paulo" (Tuesday). Here are those about Serra now: "Serra start frustrates 70% of São Paulo residents," "Personal image of mayor has positive standing," "Today, Suplicy would beat Serra in election" (Sunday), "Start of Serra term without distinction, Datafolha says," "Single transportation pass is positive legacy," "Reputation rises in richest neighborhoods" (Tuesday), and "For 54%, Serra has not fought corruption" (Wednesday).

Diversity

The biggest journalistic difference between coverage of the two mayors is in the material produced besides the surveys. In this item, coverage in 2001 was much richer. The newspaper then published a critical summary of the evaluation made by the mayor's office (one page) and a little more than a half page with the interview.

It also ran a box in which it put Suplicy's promises in the 2000 campaign side by side with performance up to that time. They evaluated 15 topics, which required close tracking. That same day, it published a group of photos that showed seven critical areas in São Paulo before the mayor took office and after three months. The conclusion was that little had changed: "Persistent chaos does not surprise Suplicy."

The newspaper even published a big story in which members of Suplicy's party had a negative opinion about her administration ("For PT members, administration lacks articulation") and an analysis of Suplicy's political behavior ("Mayor refuses to follow traditional political pattern").

Now the newspaper produced little about Serra's administration. On Sunday, it published an illustrated page that compared the two points in time. ("Serra repeats Suplicy in the first 100 days"). On Monday, it published reactions in which PSDB members defended him from a negative evaluation ("PSDB members blame Suplicy for Serra's bad results"). That's it.

Journalistic coverage this year was as critical or even more so than in 2001, but not as good.

This decline in quality was clearer in another piece of information: in 2001, the newspaper also evaluated the mayors of Rio (Cesar Maia) and Recife (João Paulo) and advanced the debate that assembled those of São Paulo, Rio, Salvador (Antonio Imbassahy) and Curitiba (Cassio Taniguchi), published on two pages. Now, nothing was published about other mayors.

The daily newspaper "Valor Econômico," for example, ran a special series, between April 4 and 8, in which it analyzed the administrations in 11 state capitals.

In Folha's favor, it should calculate the attention given to the resignation of Culture Secretary Emanoel Araújo ("Culture chief leaves job and criticizes Serra"), and the problems which darkened the Finance Secretary ("Finance Secretary faces accusations of impropriety").

Opinion

A good part of the questions that I received about the coverage of the 100 days of Serra spoke about the newspaper's opinion and not the stories.

I don't know if the newspaper could be accused of being condescending toward the mayor, as some messages pointed out, but the effort it used was clear in trying to understand the difficulties he faced. This was clear in the editorial "First evaluation" published on Sunday.

This passage summarized the rationale of the editorial: "It is clear that three months is a very short period to allow a reasonable appreciation of an administration. With 90 days, the mayor and his secretaries have only begun to learn about the real situation. This is even truer in the context of the administrative and financial chaos that Suplicy left her successor.

"None of these elements, however, eliminates the feeling that Serra arrived at City Hall without a plan for the city, abandoned the previous administration's programs and spent a lot of time complaining about the former mayor. This generalized impression that the new mayor lacks direction also could be one of the motives which contributed to the bad judgment that São Paulo residents deserve."

In 2001, there was no editorial. Another difference is in the "Letters to the Editor" which covered an exchange of accusations between PSDB members (Monday and Thursday) and PT members (Friday) which should have been published along with the daily news with repercussions from the survey, not in the (small) space reserved for readers.

Tradução de John Wright