A Blast of Cold Water

03/20/2017 - 12h05

The largest investigation ever undertaken in the country, the so-called Car Wash operation, has been underway now for 3 years. It is also the biggest journalistic challenge in recent history.

In recent months, the political news has centered around the expectation of a cooperation agreement with 77 executives and former leaders of construction company Odebrecht.

This has been christened the "end of the world plea bargain" in reference to the extent of its potential damage among the movers and shakers of the wheels of power.

On Tuesday (14), the Federal General Prosecutor, Rodrigo Janot, sent to the Federal Supreme Court (STF) 83 requests for formal judicial inquiries.

Officially, by way of written notice, the Federal Prosecutor informed: "It is not possible to divulge details about the terms of the testimonies, inquiries, or any of the elements sent to the STF because they are under Judicial secrecy".

Janot requested that the case's rapporteur at the STF, minister Edson Fachin, grant a partial lifting of the secrecy on some of the material, considered it necessary in order "to provide transparency and to serve the interest of the public". Fachin has yet to decide or pronounce on the request.

A major surprise has been the confirmation that the coverage provided by the primary communication organizations _ print, television, and electronic _ has all been incredibly similar. This is a blast of cold water for those who believe in the independence of the press.

Of the dozens of those involved in the investigation, the same 16 names of politicians were leaked to journalists _ five ministers in the current government, the presidents of the Congress and Senate, five senators, two former presidents and two former ministers.

They were in the headlines on television, radio, internet portals and on the pages of the Folha and its competitors _ "O Estado de S. Paulo" (The State of São Paulo), "O Globo" (The Globe) and "Valor" (Value).
How could there be such a coincidence? The Ombudsman investigated and discovered that the information was released on the so-called second Janot list through what is conventionally referred to in the journalistic world as an "off-the-record press conference".

In general, "off-the-record" information is what a certain source passes along to journalists with their recorders turned off and under protection of anonymity, not coordinated with the process of a formal press conference _ so that the journalists are invited to specifically hear from a particular authority about a specific matter.

After receiving guarantees that they wouldn't be identified, representatives from the Federal Prosecutor's Office met with journalists, all together, to pass along information about the requests for inquiries under secrecy, based on plea bargain testimony from Odebrecht executives.

The law that regulates plea bargaining calls for the testimony to be held and protected in secrecy until charges are formally filed.

The next day, the journalistic race for news went back to normal, with several outlets managing to get exclusive information about more things that weren't divulged initially from the inquiries being conducted in secrecy.

For example, it was revealed that another minister, four senators and five congressmen are among those who had requests for inquiries filed by the prosecutor that hadn't been mentioned before.

Afterwards, it became known that at least ten governors, five of them publicly identified, are also listed in the case.

What sense does it make to identify and reveal only some of those who are involved? What is the strategy of the prosecutors, a party with a vested interest in the process, to divulge some names while omitting others? Why not release the names of all those, for example, that are in the filing requests?

For the reader, it ends up being a half-told story. Information passed through a medicine dropper undermines the overall global understanding and raises the mistrust of manipulation of information.

The end result of this kind of underground agreement is that journalists are subjected to unclear criteria regarding sources, who supply whatever information they want, have and can. At a certain point, the reporter agrees to stop asking questions.

This isn't the first time, however, that this kind of procedure has been followed. It has been utilized repeatedly by the Planalto Presidential Palace, the Congress and even the STF itself.

All of this ends up producing an uncomfortable journalistic uniformity, which repeats and stresses the official line.

Through the many scandals that have shadowed the country since the re-democratization of 1985, the press has maintained, until very recently, a leading and independent position in the investigation of illicit public activities.

In the intricate narrative of the Car Wash, the dependence of reporters on official sources and investigations has become excessive.

Ideally, a newspaper will have its own independent investigative resources. But with Car Wash, it has been difficult, if not to say impossible, to get along without official cooperation from entities involved in the Car Wash operation.

In light of this, the newspaper owes, at a minimum, transparency to its readers, who have the right to know where the information that they are consuming is coming from.

When contacted, the *Folha*'s management preferred not to comment. Like a good wine, knowing the origin is a good way to determine and control the quality.

Translated by LLOYD HARDER

Read the article in the original language