The Estadão and Folha de S. Paulo on the infamous “mountain of money” photo, leaked by federal police agent Edmilson “Bruno Surfistinha” Bruno. Click to zoom. Folha: “Photos show dossier money.” Which is a terrible headline. Estado: “PT tries to prevent publication, sues to impugn Alckmin candidacy.” The Estadão headline at the very least had the virtue of reporting on the events behind the photo. Photos: Lula looking like a garden gnome, as shown in the Folha, in the Estado, is shown side by side with Alckmin (PSDB) being kissed by a preto velho archetype. Source: CartaCapital.
A questão do apartidarismo: The Folha de S. Paulo’s public editor addresses “The Question of Nonpartisanship.”
The new ombudsman of the Folha de S. Paulo, brought in to replace a predecessor who resigned under protest over restrictions on his activity, has been writing a regular Sunday column not unlike that published by Clark Hoyt of the New York Times, rather than the daily critique previously published.
The Folha’s reputation for editorial integrity was badly damaged by an election-eve “mountain of money” pseudoscandal in 2006.
Folha reporters and editors plain out and out lied about the identity of a source of a leak to “protect” him. The source, a federal policeman, may have engaged in criminal conduct or administrative misconduct in gathering the leaked material. A tape was published in which the source is heard spinning the mendacious cover story, and the Folha’s reporter is heard agreeing to run it.
Seriously.
- Puta Sacanagem: Sampa Journalists Huddle with Capt. Edmilson of the Federal Police
- The Folha de S. Paulo In Flagrante Delicto
- The Folha de São Paulo, Phreaked by Leak, Does Not Regret the Error
- The Risco Cisco Affair: The Folha Takes a Leak On Its Own Shoes
- Apocalyptic Chaos in the Skies: The Folha de S. Paulo Runs Nonexistent Facts
The new ombudsman has been accused by fans of his (dedicated and talented) predecessor of being management’s man in the role, but his work so far does not justify the charge.
NESTA semana, o ombudsman recebeu 42 mensagens de leitores que se queixavam de falta de apartidarismo da Folha. Destas, 37 diziam que o jornal foi a favor do PSDB em diversos episódios e cinco achavam que ele favoreceu o PT.
This week, the ombusdman received 42 messages from readers who complained of the paper’s lack of nonpartisanship. Of these, 37 said the paper has favored the PSDB in various episodes and five thought that it had favored the PT.
É muito para quem tem de responder a todas pessoal e individualmente. Mas não chegam a 20% do total endereçado ao ombudsman e são menos de 10% da correspondência enviada ao jornal e nem 0,01% do total de leitores.
That’s a lot for someone whose job it is to respond to each and every letter personally. But they represent not even 20% of all messages sent to the ombudsman, less than 10% of the total volume of correspondence the paper receives , and not even 0.01% of our total readership.
Claro que não é o critério estatístico que determina a representatividade de um grupo de leitores. Os que se dirigem ao jornal, mesmo poucos, são significativos e importantes. Mesmo o contingente que se manifesta por motivação ideológica ou partidária é representativo e deve ser levado em conta pelo ombudsman, que tem de representar todos os leitores, inclusive aqueles que não se dirigem a ele.
Obviously, however, the representativeness of a group of readers is not determined by statistical criteria. Those who communicate with us, though few in number, are significant and important. Even those moved by partisan or ideological motives are representative and should be taken into account by this ombudsman, whose job it is to represent all readers, even those who do not write to him.
O apartidarismo é um dos pilares do Projeto Folha desde 1984 e continua sendo, segundo manifestação da Secretaria de Redação a mim esta semana.
Nonpartisanship is one of the pillars of the Folha Project inaugurated in 1984 and it continues to be, a senior editor told me this week.
Ele foi elevado a essa condição dentro de uma lógica de mercado, não ética nem política: o público leitor é composto por pessoas que têm diversas visões de mundo e o jornal não pode abrir mão de nenhum desses grupos.
This objective achieved this important thanks to the logic of the market, not for ethical or political criteria: The reading public is made up of persons with diverse visions of the world, and a newspaper cannot dispense with any of these groups of readers.
Eduardo Guimarães, um dos mais incisivos críticos da mídia, com quem tenho intensas diferenças de opinião mas por quem tenho respeito intelectual, diz que um jornal que resolvesse alienar uma parcela dos leitores que vota num partido com o desempenho eleitoral que tem tido o PT no Brasil estaria dando um tiro no pé.
Eduardo Guimarães, one of our most incisive media critics, with whom I have intense differences of opinion but for whose intellectual I have great respect, has said that a newspaper that decides to alienate a portion of its potential readership that has had the electoral success of the PT in Brazil is shooting itself in the foot.
É verdade. Por que a Folha o faria? Uma hipótese é que estaria apostando que num futuro governo federal tucano, ela teria tantas vantagens que compensaria o prejuízo da alienação de leitores atual. Aí, entra-se no território das crenças porque é impossível comprovar essa teoria. Eu não acredito nessa possibilidade. Se acreditasse, não teria aceitado o convite para ocupar este cargo e, se um dia vier a crer nela, eu o deixarei.
He is right. But why would the Folha do this? One hypothesis is that it is betting the Toucans reoccupying the federal administration in the future, when it will achieve advantages that offset the alienation of readers currently. Here, however, we enter the territory of superstition, because this theory is impossible to prove. I do not believe it. If I did, I would not have accepted the invitation to occupy this post, and if I come to believe one day, I will resign.
Três episódios recentes concentraram os ataques contra a Folha por parte de quem a julga tucana: o caso Alstom, a crise gaúcha e a reportagem sobre doações partidárias.
Three recent cases have drawn most of the fire to the Folha by those who judge it biased in favor of the Toucans: The Alstom case, the corruption crisis in Rio Grande do Sul, and its reporting on campaign donations.
No caso Alstom, o jornal “saiu atrasado”, como admite a Secretaria de Redação. Depois do atraso, continuou tímido por semanas. Despertou depois que o concorrente tomou a iniciativa, mas permaneceu mal. Levou um mês para se manifestar em editorial.
In the Alstom case, the Folha was “late out of the starting gate,” as the [executive editor-equivalent, sort of] admits. After arriving late to the party, its coverage continued to be timid for several weeks. It woke up when a competitor took the initiative, but it was still not very good. It took the Folha a month to work up an editorial on the subject.
Na sexta, afinal, produziu uma reportagem convincente com informações exclusivas e apontou com clareza a ligação dos envolvidos com os governos do PSDB em São Paulo. Na crise gaúcha, o jornal também fez cobertura modesta até esta semana, quando afinal -na terça e na sexta- o assunto foi para a capa.
Finally, last Friday, it produced a convincing piece of reporting, with exclusive information, pointing clearly to the ties of the persons involved with PSDB governments in São Paulo. In the cause of the political crisis [in the deep south], the Folha’s coverage was also modest until last week, when it finally — on Tuesday and Friday — put the story on the front page.
O pior caso, para mim, é o das doações partidárias, reportagem publicada com destaque no dia 26 de maio. Dediquei um terço da coluna de 1º de junho ao tema: a reportagem tratava de forma claramente desigual doações legais feitas a PSDB e PT por empresas que depois ganharam contratos dos governos federal e dos Estados de São Paulo e Minas Gerais.
The worst case, for me, was that of campaign donations, a report published with prominent placement on May 26. I dedicated a third of my June 1 column to the topic: The article clearly gave unequal treatment to legal donations to the PSDB and the PT by companies that later won contracts from the federal government and the state goverments of São Paulo and Minas.
Embora o valor dos contratos em relação às doações fosse muito maior no caso do PSDB, toda a ênfase foi dada aos do PT.
Though the value of the contracts in relation to the value of the donations were greater in the case of the PSDB, the full emphasis of the story was on the PT’s donations.
Pedi que a Secretaria de Redação explicasse o critério e sua resposta não me convenceu: no caso do PT, os pagamentos pelo governo já foram feitos e no do PSDB, eles ainda não foram realizados.Teria sido melhor, a meu ver, reconhecer um erro de avaliação.
I asked the [executive editor] to explain the criteria used in that story, and his explanation did not satisfy me: In the case of the PT, the payments by the government had already been made, while in the case of the PSDB, they had not yet been realized. It would have been best, in my view, to admit to having made an error in editorial judgment.
Ser apartidário num ambiente de divisão política acirrada é muito difícil. Ser visto como imparcial por todos é impossível. O pior é que não basta ser: é preciso parecer ser. Nestes três casos, a Folha muitas vezes não pareceu ser.
Being nonpartisan in an overheated political climate is very hard to do. To be seen as impartial by everyone is impossible. But the worst of it is that it is not enough to be impartial: One has to appear to be impartial as well. In these three cases, the Folha often appears not to be.
There was a very interesting analysis recently in Carta Capital about presidential aspirant Aecio Neves of Minas Gerais and a strategy of addressing what is viewed as a silent majority of voters alienated by the “dirty wars” partisanship.
I can attest to that alienation myself from conversations over beers and with taxi drivers and meter readers and the like.
And I confess to sympathizing with it. Back home, where I actually think I comprehend the politics to a degree, I am neither a registered Democrat or a registered Republican.
I think the modus operandi of the traditional political parties are the heart of the problem.
I am very open to the rhetoric of the so-called “third way,” and indeed, a lot of the political success of the PT alluded to has come from sticking to that “third way” strategy.
I call this the “political party as grizzly bear” theory of political journalism.
Grizzly bears are noble creatures in their native habitat, doing their thing.
When they discover the dumpster in back of your trailer park, however, they become a deadly menace to the orderly workings of civil society and the free markets.
They need to be tranquilized and helicoptered back to Jellystone, or, in extreme cases, put down.
The same goes for polar bears. And I imagine a lot of people think the same goes for Tupi political fauna as well, be they Toucans or the phantom Soviet bear of the PCdoB.
I do own a copy of the Folha’s (excellent) Manual da Redação, you know.
I can check when it follows it and when it does not.
At this point, it does not follow it often enough — why does Lilian Christofoletti, the Folha’s designated Judy Millerist confabulator in the puta sacanagem huddle, still have a job? — that I prefer to buy its principal competitor (a copy of whose excellent editorial manual I also own.)
Filed under: Uncategorized
