The Press And Wiener Factories

03/27/2017 - 12h28

The spectacle of magical realism in the words of a judge got underway on Friday (17) with the largest operation ever undertaken in the history of the Federal Police (PF).

The PF has been investigating 32 companies for a bribery scheme involving payments made to federal government inspectors to release adulterated or spoiled meat for two years.

The primary meat packing facilities in the country are among those that have been under investigation. The adulterated meat has been traced as far as school lunches.

Products have been identified with potentially carcinogenic substances. But maybe it wasn't quite like that.

This is the theme that has been drawing the most comments from readers, who have been criticizing the job done by the press and the police.

Quoting text from Saturday's edition: "During two years of investigation, the PF confirm that they have found adulterated meat in supermarket displays, with expired validity dates and disguising products that are legally banned".

One reader complained: "Why didn't the news media question the delay, how long it took the police to trlrsdr information about such an extremely important subject, instead of handing out punishments, in order to prevent the population from consuming such problematic meat?"

The Folha reported that the police had published, without questioning, without doubting, without consulting specialists who could assist in evaluating the facts.

It didn't invest in its own line of investigation either nor even send people into the field to examine evidence.

On Monday (20), the newspaper once again uncritically reported on declarations from the companies and the government.

Then it changed its posture to one of criticism of the police operation, demonstrating dubious reports, unreasonable generalizations and partial or incomplete technical 'proof'.

But the damage to the sector had already been done. Readers were left lost, not knowing who they could believe.

The Editor of the "Mercado" (Market) section, Ricardo Balthazar, admitted that the "tone of the reporting changed during the week, as the avalanche of information from the police could be properly evaluated more carefully".

And he pointed out that on Monday, in the first, more critical story, the Folha reported that during the two years of investigation only one of the meat processing plants had its products submitted to a technical analysis by the police, objectively revealing the weaknesses in the police work.

In general, just as the investigation regarding the meat itself is concerned, the *Folha*'s coverage of it ended up being weak.

It brings to mind the old proverbial saying: as with wieners, if the reader knew what newspapers were made of, would he continue to consume them?

FOR TRANSPARENCY AND RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISTIC PRACTICE

The column published on the 19th of March has been in the center of controversy between players in the Brazilian Political scenario.

I had written that the coverage in the primary communication vehicles of the requests for inquiries based upon plea bargains with current and former executives from construction company Odebrecht contained unbelievably similar versions of events compared to each other.

Of the dozens of individuals fingered in the investigation, the names of the same 16 politicians were initially leaked to various journalists who had no knowledge of the criteria used for divulging them.

I discovered that the information had been passed along at a meeting between journalists and representatives from the Federal General Prosecutor's Office (PGR) provided strictly off-the-record, meaning that the source of the report couldn't be identified in the articles.

The Federal General Prosecutor, Rodrigo Janot, declared that the statement was a "lie". Federal Supreme Court (STF) Minister Gilmar Mendes took the opportunity to accuse the PGR of "blackmail" for leaking confidential and secret information. Janot responded by referring to "verbal dysentery".

I am again reaffirming, as I did during the week, that the information published here was confirmed by more than three independent sources as required by responsible journalistic practice.

The Ombudsman is a professional who operates independently and in isolation from the *Folha*'s editors.

If information comes to me, it is up to me whether to investigate, verify and publish it. That is what I did in the name of transparency and in defense of the responsible journalism that the reader deserves.

There are crises which are healthy because they generate the necessity for the review of procedures and behaviors. The so-called Car Wash investigation has served this spirit in many of its principal moments.

The Whirlwind that I involuntarily provoked also has this potential.
Defenders of Independence, transparency and acuity of information have an ally here, while those who are retrogressive will certainly encounter an adversary.

Translated by LLOYD HARDER

Read the article in the original language