Questioning Does Not Offend

01/27/2015 - 10h09

It's disappointing for readers to see a topic with direct impact on the daily lives of thousands of people treated in a bureaucratic and inattentive way by their newspaper.

Folha stumbled in this regard with the report "Eletropaulo cuts technical staff, says (Gov. Geraldo) Alckmin administration," published in the print version on Thursday, Jan. 22.

The text was a succession of quotation marks. The state government said it was "disappointed" with the service by the utility and "worried" about the lack of an "adequate response" - an "enormous injustice."

The state's energy secretary accused the company of cutting staff devoted to dealing with emergencies and not having performed the necessary steps before the intense rainy season.

Eletropaulo replied: it found the criticism "strange," having trimmed 140,000 trees in 2014 and planning to perform another 200,000 tree trimmings over the next 90 days. And it stayed that way.

The tune of the two sides suggested more of a relationship discussion between hurt partners than a debate over an urgent problem, which has already brought death, generalized injuries, and cuts in energy and water supplies for millions of people.

The newspaper, for its part, relegated the matter to a sheepish text which summarized the arguments and actors involved without telling about their characteristics and responsibilities.

There were no answers to the obvious questions, those which pass immediately through readers' heads: if it's possible to take care of 200,000 trees in three months, as the company promised, why did they trim only 140,000 over the past 12 months? Who is in charge of supervising them? What has the state government done or what should it do besides publicizing its "disappointment?" Readers were left hanging.

The day before (Jan. 21), on a front page about the enormous loss of water due to leaks and fraud ("Brazil wastes 37% of treated water"), the daily news section published, with little notice, a series of dubious arguments provided by the water company (identified this way, without giving names or any details).

The utilities alleged that it is impossible to eliminate losses from leaks and fraud - a false premise because what is demanded is recovery to more reasonable levels.

They asserted, without giving estimates, that fighting waste would require huge investments in replacing valves and pipes, an expenditure that would not be justified by savings.

The argument revels that the lack of understanding about the huge amount in question is not a financial question, but rather sustainable management of a natural, critical and scarce resource. The newspaper, however, was satisfied to repeat this ditty.

In its defense, the team at the daily news section argued that occasional deficiencies in this or that story do not mean that it is failing to do uncritical coverage. (Let me say that this is not my opinion either.)

"In recent weeks, diverse reports were featured which pointed out deficiencies in government administrations and companies," declared the interim editor, Alencar Izidoro.

It's worth emphasizing that stories which fall short due to a mere mechanical registry of the speech made by those interviewed or by the lack of contesting questionable assertions are not an exception to the rule nor a problem in just one newsroom, even though the examples mentioned today come from the same section.

I suspect that the problem is the product of reading in a rush with the determination to contact all sides and let readers reach their own conclusions. The prescription is correct, but it's up to the newspaper to design the setting well enough so it can do this. The portrait is insufficient.

Translated by JOHN WRIGHT

Read the article in the original language