ADVERTISING

Latest Photo Galleries

Signs of Tension Signs of Tension

Published on 04/11/2016

Rio: a City in Metamorphosis Rio: a City in Metamorphosis

Published on 11/19/2015

Brazilian Markets

17h30

Bovespa

+0,32% 128.106

16h43

Gold

0,00% 117

17h00

Dollar

+0,68% 5,0140

16h30

Euro

+0,49% 2,65250

ADVERTISING

Folha Made a Mistake and Then Persisted with It

07/26/2016 - 15h47

Advertising

PAULA CESARINO COSTA

Founded in 1983, the Datafolha research institute, part of the Folha Group, has accumulated a heritage of technical quality, through a bold approach to and interpretation of unbiased, uncompromised data. Its credibility has been constructed by working in junction with the newsroom.

It has been introjected into the newspaper in such a way that there is an old criticism of Folha as being a "data-dependent" newspaper.

Having said this, one must recognize that last week was a bitter one for the Datafolha and for Folha itself.

Since I have had the position of Ombudsman, I have never seen a subject mobilize readers so much. Of all the messages that I have received since Wednesday (20), 62% have been criticisms of and accusations against the newspaper.

They vary from journalistic fraud to manipulation of findings to pure and simple bad faith, as well as negating information and biased interpretation.

The primary question is in the accusation that the newspaper omitted, deliberately, information that the majority of those interviewed (62%) by Datafolha said that they were in favor of new presidential elections, under a scenario in which both Dilma Rousseff and Michel Temer had resigned.

The paper opted instead to highlight that 50% preferred that Temer remain rather than have Dilma return. In this question, even without new elections as an explicit option, 3% indicated a preference for new elections.

Questions 11, 13 & 14 of the Datafolha survey have become the focus of vigorous controversy.

Sites like "The Intercept", from Journalist Glenn Greenwald, and "Tijolaço", from Journalist Fernando Brito accused Folha of "journalistic fraud through manipulated research intended to support Temer".

In a related revelation, they showed that the newspaper omitted from reporting and from the questionnaire itself, published on Datafolha's site, the question for respondents related to holding new elections.

Another question was also omitted. This one asked respondents to evaluate whether or not the impeachment process was following democratic and constitutional norms: 49% responded 'yes', while 37% responded 'no'.

To fuel conspiracy theories further, it was revealed that Datafolha posted more than one version of the polemic research on its site. However, only one of them contained the two questions. The institute explained that it prepares a complete report for the newsroom, but includes in final publication on the site only what is actually published in the newspaper.

In fact, the first document is still on the site but, by mistake, retains the title for question 14, which is missing from the reported results since it wasn't used.

In response to all the controversy, both Folha and Datafolha decided to provide a link to the complete report

After the storm resulting from the revelation of the omissions, Sérgio Dávila, the newspaper's executive editor, said that the response to the question about the double resignation of Dilma and Temer didn't appear especially newsworthy, only propagating an oft-repeated idea, that the paper additionally considered to be a very unlikely political scenario.

Readers disagreed: "It looks like Folha is trying to get away with changing the subject, with vague answers", said Eduardo Ottoni. "The arguments are an insult to the readers' intelligence", declared Márcia Meireles. "Folha made a mistake. Is it so hard to admit a mistake?", she asked.

The Ombudsman summarized readers' criticisms for the executive editor. Dávila argued that "the only concrete scenario before the Senate is to decide whether Dilma Rousseff will return to occupy the position of Brazilian President or whether Michel Temer will continue to hold it. There is no third option beyond these two possible outcomes. (...) It's consistent with good journalistic practices to not publish what has little relevance."

Dávila reminded further that Folha frequently publishes only parts of its surveys, "never [the surveys] in their entirety"

I disagree with many of the executive editor's points. When Folha published, on April 3rd, an editorial on the Front Page arguing for the resignation of both Dilma and Temer and calling for new elections, this was not a likely political scenario at that time either.

If the possibility of a double resignation wasn't to be under further consideration, why was this question then included in the survey. The questionnaire would have been prepared with this understanding. Propagating an unlikely, but oft-repeated idea as an argument against revealing the response has been incoherent as a practice of the newspaper for years.

As editor in chief and political editor I participated in the preparation of innumerous Datafolha questionnaires and surveys. Since there was always a technical limit to the number of questions, each one had to be carefully chosen and thought out. There is no justification for including a question and then ignoring it afterwards.

In the daily critic that circulates in the newsroom, I questioned the treatment of research, carried out by the newspaper, underemphasizing political issues, while highlighting economic optimism in headlines.

Once the omissions were revealed, I decried the way in which the newspaper was dealing with the polemic situation. I suggested that Folha recognize its editorial mistake and highlight the missing research data in a new report.

From my point-of-view, the newspaper committed a serious mistake of judgment. It didn't worry itself with presenting the different points of view that the research revealed in order to maintain a journalistic posture uncompromised by political pressure.

And once given a chance to fix the mistake, it wrapped itself in obtuse, formal logic and a supposed lack of newsworthiness.

The non-transparent, slow and nearly contemptuous reaction to the mistakes and omissions that were revealed has tainted Folha's image as a research institution. Folha made a mistake and persisted with it.

Translated by LLOYD HARDER

Read the article in the original language

You have been successfully subscribed. Thanks!

Close

Are you interested in news from Brazil?

Subscribe to our English language newsletter, delivered to your inbox every working day, and keep up-to-date with the most important news from Brazil.

Cancel