Diogo Mainardi of Veja magazine (Brazil), in his most recent podcast, cites a column by Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell — “An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage” — in support of a familiar excuse for the viciously slanted and disinformation-plagued news coverage purveyed by his employer: They call us viciously slanted, but the U.S. press is no better!
In his paraphrase of Howell’s conclusions, Mainardi uses highly selective quotation and distorts Howell’s analysis in order to describe coverage by U.S. media as chapa-branca — a hysterically exaggerated conclusion not supported by a full reading of Howell’s analysis of the paper’s coverage.
He also cites The Economist as rebuking the “dirty game” played by the U.S. news media to get Obama elected.
He seems — although he is not specific on this point — to be referring to A biased market: Skewed news reporting is taken as a sign of a dysfunctional media. In fact, it may be a sign of healthy competition (October 30 2008). That article makes no such moral judgment about any “dirty game” played by the U.S. press in a supposed conspiracy to elect Obama.
Chapa-branca, a metaphor for “bought and sold” or biased coverage, comes from a Brazilian expression meaning
a public service car, with a white license plate
The metaphor is outdated, as all newly-issued Brazilian license plates are now white (there are still some old orange ones circulating. Anyone remember when California license plates were black with orange lettering?).
In other words, then, a press that is chapa-branca is one that simply uncritically parrots the government line, that serves as an extension of political and private interest groups, lacking critical independence.
For Mainardi to characterize the U.S. media in this way is for the pot to call the kettle black.
Howell, for example, explains the apparent pro-Obama bias in her paper as an artifact of the unfortunate predominance of “horse-race” campaign coverage over issues coverage.
She endorses the findings of a broader study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) (summary of analysis shown above):
One question likely to be posed is whether these findings provide evidence that the news media are pro-Obama. Is there some element in these numbers that reflects a rooting by journalists for Obama and against McCain, unconscious or otherwise? The data do not provide conclusive answers. They do offer a strong suggestion that winning in politics begat winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls and internal tactical maneuvering to alter those positions. Obama’s coverage was negative in tone when he was dropping in the polls, and became positive when he began to rise, and it was just so for McCain as well. Nor are these numbers different than what we have seen before. Obama’s numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago as he began rising in the polls, and McCain’s numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore.
This analysis is too subtle for Mainardi, however, who presents us with a conspiratorial narrative according to which Obama is the American Fernando Collor — notoriously elected to the Brazilian presidency thanks in large part to a massive propaganda campaign mounted by the (monopolistic) Globo network.
Mainardi writes, hasty translation, for informational purposes, with no commercial value, yada yada yada:
Barack Obama foi eleito por jornais e TVs. Menos pelos editoriais de apoio, pela cobertura parcial, pelas fotografias enaltecedoras e pelos quadros satíricos que eles fizeram, e mais pelo que eles deixaram de fazer: reportagens, reportagens, reportagens.
Barack Obama was elected by newspapers and television. Less by the editorials endorsing him or the slanted coverage, less by the photography presenting him in a favorable light or the satirical cartoons they ran, than by what they omitted to do: reporting, reporting, and reporting.
Had it been up to Veja, a cover story with a (phony Photoshopped) photo of Obama doing a bong hit in his dorm at Occidental College would have been accompanied by a huge editorial package on the international drug trade — with whom Obama and the FARC are said to be equally in cahoots.
The New York Times public editor (ombudsman) defended his own paper against this charge in response to the question:
Has The Times been tougher on John McCain and Sarah Palin than it has been on Barack Obama and Joe Biden?
He proceeds to list the critical factual reporting the Times did on each candidate — including a story on Obama’s college drug use.
It’s a fairly convincing argument that the Times did not spare either candidate in terms of exploring their backgrounds.
A ombudsman do Washington Post analisou as matérias do próprio jornal. Em primeiro lugar, ela destacou a gritante disparidade de tratamento reservada aos candidatos – as matérias sobre Barack Obama e Joe Biden, uma moleza; as matérias sobre John McCain e Sarah Palin, uma paulada, como elas de fato devem ser numa disputa presidencial.
The ombudsman of the Washington Post analyzed the articles that appeared in her own newspaper. First, she emphasized the screaming disparity in treatment afforded the candidates — the articles on Obama and Biden went easy, while the articles on John McCain and Sarah Palin were harsh, as coverage of a presidential dispute ought to be.
She says nothing about a “screaming disparity.” She points to what might be more fairly called a slight but significant (and undesirable) preponderance, for example, in photographic coverage:
Counting from June 4, Obama was in 311 Post photos and McCain in 282. Obama led in most categories. Obama led 133 to 121 in pictures more than three columns wide, 178 to 161 in smaller pictures, and 164 to 133 in color photos. In black and white photos, the nominees were about even, with McCain at 149 and Obama at 147. On Page 1, they were even at 26 each. Post photo and news editors were surprised by my first count on Aug. 3, which showed a much wider disparity, and made a more conscious effort at balance afterward.
An even count of front-page photos and a 10% edge in three-column photos cannot reasonably be described as a “screaming discrepancy,” nor can the term “tilt” be interpreted to connote a massive bias as opposed to a slight but perceptible inclination.
Em seguida, a ombudsman tocou no ponto que mais me interessa: a absoluta falta de interesse do Washington Post em investigar temas potencialmente danosos para a campanha de Barack Obama. Em particular, ela citou dois desses temas: seu envolvimento com drogas nos tempos da faculdade e seus negócios com Anthony Rezko, o empresário corruptor que financiou a carreira política e a vida privada de Barack Obama, tendo-o ajudado a comprar sua casa. Anthony Rezko foi condenado criminalmente durante a campanha eleitoral, mesmo assim ninguém deu bola para o caso.
Next, she touched on the point that most interests me: The absolute lack of interest by the Post in investigating topics potentially damaging to Barack Obama. She cites two topics in particular: Obama’s involvement in drugs during college and his dealings with Anthony Rezko, the corrupt businessman who financed his political career and private life, having helped him buy his home. Rezko was found guilty of criminal charges during the campaign, but no one cared about the case.
The New York Times reported on the guy’s indictment, and Obama ties, in June 2007. And on the conviction, one year later.
A Economist também tratou desse jogo sujo da imprensa para eleger Barack Obama. Uma das principais vantagens que sua campanha teve sobre a de John McCain foi a esmagadora superioridade financeira. Essa vantagem só foi obtida porque Barack Obama, em vez de recorrer ao financiamento público, conforme ele prometera durante as primárias, serviu-se de dinheiro privado, arrecadando 600.000.000 de dólares, boa parte dos quais pela internet, de origem desconhecida.
The Economist also dealt with the dirty game the press engaged in to elect Obama. One of his principle advantages was his overwhelming edge in campaign finance. This advantage was only obtained because Obama, instead of using public campaign finance, as he promised during the primaries, used private money, raising $600 million, most of it through the Internet, from unknown origins.
On the face of it, this is far from true. You can download raw data files from the Federal Elections Commission listing the name of every single contributor, who have to identify themselves for the purposes of enforcing limits on the amount that can be donated within a two-year period under FEC rules.
I am looking at the file for New York right now. Name, address, profession, employer. You can go and look up the fact that I donated $250 to the Working Families Party a few years ago — I am a registered independent — but have not donated to anyone lately.
There have been concerns raised — by the Washington Post, notably — about the use of Internet fundraising and “faceless credit card transactions” to get around donation rules and limits, however.
It is against the rules to donate your own money in someone else’s name.
Concerns, however — and in the Post story, these concerns are balanced by claims from the Obama campaign that they carefully weeded out potentially illegal contributions — are far from being a basis for stating definitively that the bulk of donations “were from unknown origins.”
Mainardi has no credible basis for this claim.
Source: Federal Elections Commission
The point is: Mainardi is misrepresenting what his purported sources are saying. Howell does not conclude that her newspaper engaged in a “dirty game” to elect Obama. Neither does The Economist. Howell:
McCain clinched the GOP nomination on March 4, three months before Obama won his. From June 4 to Election Day, the tally was Obama, 626 stories, and McCain, 584. Obama was on the front page 176 times, McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both.
Our survey results are comparable to figures for the national news media from a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. It found that from June 9, when Clinton dropped out of the race, until Nov. 2, 66 percent of the campaign stories were about Obama compared with 53 percent for McCain; some stories featured both. The project also calculated that in that time, 57 percent of the stories were about the horse race and 13 percent were about issues.
Counting from June 4, Obama was in 311 Post photos and McCain in 282. Obama led in most categories. Obama led 133 to 121 in pictures more than three columns wide, 178 to 161 in smaller pictures, and 164 to 133 in color photos. In black and white photos, the nominees were about even, with McCain at 149 and Obama at 147. On Page 1, they were even at 26 each. Post photo and news editors were surprised by my first count on Aug. 3, which showed a much wider disparity, and made a more conscious effort at balance afterward.
Mainardi also apparently misrepresents the tenor of the Economist article cited — although he does not actually cite what article he means (publication date, issue number, basic things like that.)
A Economist perguntou retoricamente: o que diria o New York Times se o contrário tivesse ocorrido? Se John McCain, depois de aplicar um golpe em Barack Obama, dispusesse de duas vezes mais dinheiro para financiar sua campanha, inclusive podendo comprar, a menos de uma semana das eleições, meia hora de publicidade na TV aberta? Eu respondo a pergunta retórica da Economist. Cinco dias depois de Barack Obama ser eleito – cinco dias -, o New York Times publicou um editorial recomendando enfaticamente ao prefeito Michael Blooomberg que ele recorresse ao financiamento público em sua próxima campanha eleitoral. Pelo visto, isso vale para todos os políticos, exceto um: Barack Obama.
The Economist asked rhetorically: What would the New York Times say if the inverse was true? If McCain, after landing a low blow against McCain, had twice as much money to spend, including a half hour program on national TV a week before the elections? Five days before Obama’s election — five days! — the New York Times editorialized that New York mayor Bloomberg should use public financing for his next campaign. It seems this principle applies to all politicians except one: Obama.
I can’t find where The Economist says that. And I subscribe, mind you. I have searched the site pretty exhaustively. I need a citation, please.
The Economist, far from wagging a moralistic finger on the question of media bias, as Mainardi claims, asked whether bias was not a natural occurrence in a competitive media market, where different media corporations vie for different market niches — Fox for the Idaho militaman and Nascar dad, MSNBC for the coastal urban metrosexual, or what have you.
It also wondered whether media ownership really dictated media bias in political matters, as is often charged. This is a myth, the Limey biweekly argued:
…. the academics are helped by the fact that large media companies may own several newspapers, often in markets that are politically very different. This allowed them to test whether the slants of newspapers with the same owner were more strongly correlated than those of two newspapers picked at random. They found that this was not so: owners exerted a negligible influence on slant. Readers’ political views explained about a fifth of measured slant, while ownership explained virtually none. None of this is particularly helpful to seekers of the unvarnished truth. These conscientious sorts still have to find the time to read lots of newspapers to get an unbiased picture of the world. But by serving demand from a variety of political niches, competition does allow for different points of view to be represented. After all, just as Mrs Palin does not spend her time condemning Fox News, Mr Obama is unlikely to have too many complaints about the New York Times.
This remains a crucial difference when comparing American news media apples to Brazilian media oranges: The Brazilian media market is controlled by a handful of cartels. There simply is no “competitive marketplace of ideas” here.
All efforts to increase competition in the market are shrieked of hysterically — often by Veja — as some sort of Stalinist plot.
Monopolists (often those who owe their monopoly to state sponsorship and political favoritism, like Globo and Abril) are always the loudest defenders of free-market virtues, did you ever notice that?
Anyway, back to Mainardi, who in his infinite wisdom has a solution for the woes of the corrupt, chapa-branca American media: mo’ better journalism!
A imprensa escrita e televisiva dos Estados Unidos continua a perder público e faturamento. A temporada de Barack Obama na presidência tem tudo para afundá-la de vez. A única saída para a imprensa é voltar a fazer aquilo que só ela sabe fazer: reportagens, reportagens, reportagens.
American print media and TV continue losing audience and revenue. Obama’s tenure as president may, it appears, sink them for good. The only solution for the American press is to return to doing what only it knows how to do: Reporting, reporting, reporting.
Mainardi offering advice on how to improve American journalism is really laughable.
The perpetual font of gabbling rumor that is Veja, and Mainardi in particular, wouldn’t recognize a piece of epistemologically sound factual reporting if it bit them on the ass. See, for example,
- Veja (Brazil): Behind the Scenes of an “Exemplary” Investigative Report
- Veja Só: Editorial Integrity at Brazil’s Grupo Abril
- Abril Dissident: Cooking Up Libel at Veja Magazine
"The American press is corrupt and viciously biased -- just like us." Mainardi, laughably, as champion of journalistic integrity.
Filed under: Brazil, Journalism, Media, Politics Tagged: | bias, diogo mainardi, editora abril, impartiality, new york times, ombusdman, slant, The Economist, veja, Washtington Post
