The Confidentiality of the Source and the Source of the Confidentiality

05/29/2017 - 10h16

The undue release of conversations between a journalist and his source created a rare moment of unanimity in a country that is becoming more and more divided. There was no voice - from the left or the right, independent or traditional, conservative or liberal - that didn't condemn what amounts to a breach of confidentiality of journalistic sources, which is guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Federal Police (PF) carried out telephone wiretaps on Andrea Neves, PBDB Party Senator Aécio Neves' sister, who was being investigated for suspicious activities with the JBS group.
In one of the wiretapped conversations, Andrea was speaking with journalist Reinaldo Azevedo - a Folha columnist and up-until-then blogger for "Veja".

She complained about an article in the magazine about her brother. Azevedo referred to the report as "sickening" and repeated criticisms that he regularly made in his writings about the Federal General Prosecutor (PGR), Rodrigo Janot.

The conversation surfaced on the 23rd of May on the BuzzFeed site. The wiretap recording was taken from a collection of more than 2000 audio recordings annexed to the original investigation of the top leadership of the JBS group, which were made public by the Federal Supreme Court STF).

After being informed about the recording, the journalist resigned from the magazine and declared that the target of the release of the conversation, in fact, was he himself, not Andrea. The PF say that they didn't include the recording; the PGR says the same.

The STF reinstated partial secrecy on the audio recordings and ordered an investigation into those responsible for the episode.

The news editor for BuzzFeed Brazil, Graciliano Rocha, said that reporters, upon learning of the recording, therein identified an undue breach of the source's privileged identity. Rocha declared that, from that moment on, there was journalistic newsworthiness in revealing the wiretap and its content.

It doesn't seem like an easy decision. There was nothing in the conversation between Andrea and Reinaldo in any way related to the investigation underway.

It was a typical conversation between a journalist and a known source. Revealing it only amplified the importance of information that shouldn't have been made known. On the other hand, it drew attention to an outrageous release.

What more is there in the thousands of recordings, many considered irrelevant by the PF. Have ordinary people have had their lives devastated? Have other journalists had their conversations intercepted.

These are questions making the rounds in Editorial Writing, which is responsible for the publishing or not of such material.

GLOBO VERSUS FOLHA
If there was unanimity regarding the wiretap case, a divergence between two of the largest media organizations filled the *Folha*'s pages. On Wednesday (the 25th), columnist Marcelo Coelho, in the article "Speaking of Globo", made a rare attempt to analyze the behavior of the media in the vast amount of news coverage regarding corruption.

He highlighted the exaggerated dependence on information from the Federal Prosecutor's Office and the Federal Police. He referred to as an "irresponsibility" the Globe spending 24 hours repeating that President Michel Temer had sanctioned payments of hush-money to Eduardo Cunha.

The controversy was surrounding the phrase "you have to keep up with this" said by Temer at a meeting with businessman Joesley Batista.

The first information reported by Globo was that the President had made the comment after hearing that the businessman was paying hush-money to Cunha. The actual audio of the dialogue, compromising for the President - revealed that the declaration followed a statement by Batista he was "tight" with Cunha.

Coelho's criticism revealed the fact that, like Globo, Folha itself had said that it had confirmed the information. Coelho also criticized the lack of an open-minded vision in GloboNews coverage.

The diretor of journalism for TV Globo, Ali Kamel, considered Coelho's text to be offensive to Globo and its journalists. In an article published in Folha on Thursday (the 26th), he accusing the journalist of lying, of being unethical by calling attention to one organization's sins without mentioning the very same ones from Folha itself and reaffirmed Globo's commitment to being open to divergent points of view.

The tone of the coverage of vehicles from the Globe after the screw-up involving the conversation recorded between Temer and Joesley - more critical than usual, so much so that the newspaper "O Globo" called for the resignation of the president in a front-page editorial - has led to the emergence of various conspiracy theories.

The *Folha*'s columnist's text had the right to be. Coelho has the right to evaluate the journalism practiced by Globo just as Kamel has the right to defend the work of the group that he leads.

This is the kind of debate that enriches the reader, by knowing antagonistic positions regarding themes that are being highlighted daily. It is good for journalism and good for society.

Folha is the only Brazilian newspaper to maintain instruments that criticize the journalism that it, itself practices like the Ombudsman, the daily publication of "We Were Wrong" and the policy of providing space for those critical of the newspaper itself.

This week has shown that criticism of the media, accurately handled with detachment and without Manichaeism is a theme of relevance, interest and even necessity to readers.

Translated by LLOYD HARDER

Read the article in the original language