Facing the Challenge of Upcoming Elections, Newspaper Confronts 'Plurality Paradox'

08/30/2016 - 13h57

The shortest electoral campaign since the re-establishment of democracy got underway in reality last week with the publication of the first voter-intention polling results among registered candidates and the mandatory political hour on television and radio.

With impending developments expected in the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, the tendency of the 2016 election is to heat up the tempers of reader-voters once again, transferring down to the municipal level the boiling dispute from the 2015 Presidential campaign.

The climate of polarization between PSDB and PT members, right- and left- wingers, and those pro- or against- impeachment has overflowed into the newspapers.

The multiplication of sources for content made possible by new technologies has spawned a proliferation of alleged "news" sites, that beyond their biased postings and pages, are in fact in many cases created and manipulated by political groups or services employed by them.

This bellicose environment foments the awakening in a significant part of reader-voters of the desire that the world, and subsequently newspapers, limit themselves to their beliefs and convictions, as if something different or antagonistic could not make up or be a part of a democratic society.

The journalism that Folha proposes to engage in, consolidated over the last 30 years under critical, non-political and pluralistic themes today seems to be less understood and more challenged. The Editorial Manual preaches that "all significant ideological tendencies of society should have representation in the newspaper".

Historically, political groups, from one side of the spectrum to the other, have manifested themselves against positions published in Folha.

Throughout the decades, the newspaper has sought, with relative success, to maintain itself equidistant from power groupings, without letting go of the journalistic values that make Folha what it is.

Readers, however, have been questioning the Ombudsman frequently about the way in which the newspaper engages in plurality.

Reader Luiz Groff said: "By giving space in its pages to politicians from the right and the left and militants of different ideologies and sexualities, Folha has let go of its principal attribute, critical, balanced analysis."

Some see an exaggerated dose of plurality; others, more extreme, point to capitulation.

Reader Carlos Eduardo Gomes accused the Folha of practicing a "false pluralism" by giving space to a columnist who thinks differently than he does.

In recent weeks, readers have intensified their criticism, even more than of the news itself, on the opinion pages of the newspaper, pages that should be the safe harbor for a diversity of thinking.

From the choice of columnists for page 2 to articles published in the section Tendencies/Debates up through the cartoons, many readers have shown that they aren't willing to accept that "their" newspaper publishes ideas different than their own or positions that they don't approve of.

This isn't, however, a strictly Brazilian phenomenon, neither regarding the criticism of journalism nor the political polarization.

Research published last week by the Poynter Institute, a North American center for research about journalism, revealed that the consumption of opinionated or biased political reports affects the relationship between readers and the media outlets through which they should stay informed about what's going on.

The researchers found that there is persuasive evidence that exposure to biased sites promotes vague beliefs.

They affirmed that readers that consume this kind of media end up being incentivized to believe in distorted and vague information, independently of other evidence that they may have access to.

It was also revealed that exposure to what they refer to as ideological media by these readers stimulates misunderstandings and increases distrust about information that they are uncomfortable with.

"It's lamentable that people seem to want to read and hear what they already believe. The more we move towards the extremes, the more this takes place. For this reason, their desire for fair and neutral coverage is less and less, and this weakens journalism", concludes Margaret Sullivan, former ombudsman at the "The New York Times".

Journalism isn't an exact science, but journalists and readers have factual elements that they can't remove themselves from.

Firstly, opinion is opinion and should be package as such. A pluralistic newspaper should attempt to reflect various points of view, really contradictory ones, in the opinion pages.

Another thing is the informative values that news production should be based upon. In these days of combative social networks, journalism becomes increasingly necessary and relevant the more it exercises its investigative and analytical role anchored in accurate and precise facts.

Fair and neutral coverage ends up being a point of qualification and guarantees longevity. In the long run, readers recognize such effort.

Translated by LLOYD HARDER

Read the article in the original language