A Question of Examiner (Mal) Practice

07/03/2017 - 09h22

Examinations and experts, who became protagonists in the Brazilian crisis after the 17th of May when the existence of the recording of a very non-republican conversation between President Michel Temer and businessman Joesley Batista was made public, have ended up exposing the Folha's weaknesses.

The newspaper showed agility upon being the first to send the audio recording for an examination. The job was solicited from Ricardo Caires dos Santos, identified as "a judicial expert from the Justice Tribunal of the State of São Paulo", its highest qualification.

The result, published on the 20th of May, was that there had been "edits" performed in the recording, "clear evidence of tampering" and "defects" that invalidated it as judicial proof. The report was cited right away by Temer to try to nullify the charges.

In a column published on the 21st of May, I praised the newspaper for a "healthy exercise of skepticism", for rowing against the current that was condemning President Temer before having full knowledge of the conversation.

However, I also considered that the newspaper had gone too far when it declared the recording to be inconclusive. Even with doubts regarding the literal meaning of certain sections, the circumstances surrounding the conversation revealed behavior incompatible with the decorum expected from the President.

Right after the results of the first report, the site "O Antagonista" and the newspaper "O Globo" raised questions about the résumé of the expert contracted by Folha and pointed out basic mistakes committed in the transcription of the conversation, like calling Maria Silvia (President of BNDES at the time) Marina Silva, the CVM (Securities Values Commission) the CDN, in addition to basic grammatical errors.

To "O Globo", Caires was less emphatic regarding the question of cuts and tampering with the audio recording. Folha defended the examination and reaffirmed its conclusions without making excuses for its mistakes.

At that point, some readers sensed the existence of a tussle between the two newspapers and were surprised by the roles that each was playing in the episode.

"O Globo" was seen as anti-government and Folha as pro-government, which for each of them was the opposite role they had historically been associated with.

One month later, the Federal Police concluded that the recording of the conversation between Batista and Temer hadn't in fact been edited.

The experts of the National Criminalistics Institute identified more than 180 "natural" interruptions in the recording.

The report revealed that the recording device used by the JBS Corporation executive possesses a control that automatically pauses the recording during moments of silence and restarts when sound is identified.

In an internal analysis distributed among the editors I took the position that the newspaper owed its readers an admission of the mistake made in contracting the examination fraught with weaknesses and erroneous conclusions. Folha covered its ears.

I questioned the board about the episode. Managing editor Vinícius Mota responded that the principal conclusions reached by Ricardo Caires dos Santos were "in line" with the ones pointed out by the Brazilian Inspectors Institute, in reference to the second examination carried out by Folha.

"Nothing was 'recanted' ", "the newspaper reported what the expert registered. It should be pointed out that his examination was the first one performed on the material", "not even the Prosecutor General's Office had carried out such a basic analysis. Folha did the right thing in seeking out specialists to perform it", he argued.

From the managing editor's point-of-view, "there is no divergence between the analysis on the main point. Both detected interruptions in the audio recording."

I must register my disagreement here. The first examination "verified the existence of more than 50 edits". The second, "just like the official analysis" found interruptions caused by the device that was used.

Editing requires that specific deliberate action be taken by someone. You can't compare that to an interruption made by an option of the device to enhance the potential hours of recording time.

Comparing all of the reports that were submitted, there is no doubt that there are sufficient reasons for "the newspaper to admit that it contracted a poor service and to announce that the expert has been banned from its list of service providers, for the good of readers", as I wrote in my analysis.

Folha's image has been damaged due to journalistic malpractice.

I disagree, however, with the idea that the newspaper was trying to save Temer. Although some misunderstandings and decisions for news editing may have pointed in this direction, Folha has called upon Temer to resign in editorials, defended direct elections to choose his substitute, supported the process to invalidate the election of his ticket and referred to his government as agonizing.

Journalists don't like to miss a scoop. Frequently, they look skeptically at exclusive stories published by their competitors, which leads many of them and their managers to minimize or refuse to admit when they have missed a scoop. The result is a skewed practice of journalism. One mistake leads to another.

History doesn't usually treat kindly those who are slow to recognize them, an essential step in transforming them into a lesson for the future.

Translated by LLOYD HARDER

Read the article in the original language