ADVERTISING

Latest Photo Galleries

Signs of Tension Signs of Tension

Published on 04/11/2016

Rio: a City in Metamorphosis Rio: a City in Metamorphosis

Published on 11/19/2015

Brazilian Markets

16h30

Bovespa

+0,34% 128.135

16h43

Gold

0,00% 117

16h43

Dollar

+0,65% 5,0125

16h30

Euro

+0,49% 2,65250

ADVERTISING

Precision at the Edge of the Cliff

09/14/2017 - 15h31

Advertising

PAULA CESARINO COSTA

Accuracy, precision and balance are essential values in the practice of journalism. Applying these values, however, isn't the easiest thing. It is risky to presume that information that is subjectively expressed, will reach the reader as something objective.

This week, a headline in Folha about third-party labor sub-contractors became the champion of complaints by readers and cursing on social networks.

The study that the headline was based on pointed out that between 2007 and 2014, third-party service contractors who substituted in for fully contracted employee positions suffered a loss in salary of 2.3%.

In one of the occupations typically filled by sub-contractors, telemarketing operators, the loss was as much as 8.8%. In only one of the occupations, security guard, was any increase registered, 4.94%.

Based on this information, which was published in a magazine from USP (University of São Paulo), Folha stamped out a headline last Sunday (09/03): "Study shows that sub-contracting doesn't knock down salaries". Right below this a subtitle provided further explanation: "Workers receive 2.3% less income on average when losing status of contracted employee".

My own immediate reaction was disturbed. It was an obvious and clearly visible incongruence. How does one claim "doesn't knock down" when the very number itself points to a decrease?

The reaction from readers was immediate and reverberated on social networks, the newspaper's site and in the Ombudsman's inbox. The Letters to the Editor published various messages commenting on the subject; the majority of them against the reporting.

Many criticisms were made by readers: the headline was referred to as "deceptive", "a disservice intended to lead readers astray". There was one who referred to the report as dealing with the subject in a "skewed and dangerous" manner. Some jested that "Perhaps for the comfortable researchers, 5% or 8% is insignificant but for real workers it is a lot".

The authors of the study - Eduardo Zylberstajn (EESP/FGV and FIPE), Guilherme Stein (Siegfreid Emanuel Heuser Economic and Statistical Foundation) and Hélio Zylberstajn (FEA/USP) - analyzed data from more than 13 million Brazilian workers and selected six occupations where third-party contracting is common: equipment maintenance, security, information technology, janitorial, research and development, and telemarketing.

Eduardo Zylberstajn declares in the article that "the study lays bare the myth that sub-contracting is precarious for salaries". According to him, this inference is based on invalid comparisons between different positions, companies and people. The report cites as an example an article authored by CUT (Central Labor Union) which concluded that sub-contractors make 24.7% less than regular employees.

I asked Zylberstajn if he felt that the title was accurate. He said that the title didn't surprise him, because it makes sense for those who are acquainted with the debate surrounding third-party subcontracting. Studies that have been disseminated up until now point to a reduction of 25%. His survey revealed a much smaller decrease.

In the opinion of the Business section editor, Ricardo Balthazar, and Ana Estela de Sousa Pinto, responsible for the article, the lower reduction than that previously postulated justifies both the title and the text itself.

"The study reveals a loss of 2.3% for third-party subcontracted workers, and the article shows that this loss is much lower than that which had which had been estimated by other, previous studies, which utilized imprecise and doubtful methodologies. This is what supports the conclusion expressed by the title of the article", Balthazar said.

"'Knock down' means a strong fall, just like 'shoot up' means a strong rise. I think that the verb was properly used", argues Ana Estela. Balthazar agrees: "A fall of 24.7% in income, as suggested by the previous study on the subject cited in the article, justifies the use of the verb 'knock down'. A decrease of 2.3% doesn't."

For the reporter, "the journalistic value of the study is to show, with technical rigor, that the commonly held notion was wrong. And the title in Folha correctly reflects this".

As much as I see reasonableness in the ponderations, I can identify two problems: 1) the article is constructed with the purpose of contesting a commonly held notion, that's why a negative title was chosen. But the questioning of previous studies appears only superficially in the middle of the text, and cites only one of them; 2) the wording of the headline is imprecise and negatively affects clear understanding.

By opting for "doesn't knock down", the newspaper chose to create a title in the negative sense, which isn't recommended by the Editorial Manual. The choice of the verb was ill-advised. If we consider "knock down" simply as bringing down (knock down trees, knock down a government, knock down an injunction), the title is ok. To understand it correctly one must realize that it means that sub-contracting doesn't knock salaries down - as in, off of a cliff.

The question shouldn't be reduced to mere semantics. Labor reform is a theme that divides capitalists and laborers and has strong ideological biases. Considering the question of balance, it is unfortunate that the article focused on a single study without making comparisons.

The newspaper made the mistake of presupposing that the reader has the same knowledge of the subject as journalists do. Refusing to recognize that the title was, at a minimum, imprecise, reinforces the impression to readers that Folha published the article on the study because it is in tune with its own bias.

Translated by LLOYD HARDER

Read the article in the original language

You have been successfully subscribed. Thanks!

Close

Are you interested in news from Brazil?

Subscribe to our English language newsletter, delivered to your inbox every working day, and keep up-to-date with the most important news from Brazil.

Cancel