Brazilian Journalism Is Pretty Bad, But Not for Those Reasons

I've often decried the quality of Brazilian journalism, so I found this editorial fascinating. The author, Jorge Fernando dos Santos, is horrified by the decline of Brazilian newspapers, as the title ("Brazilian Newspapers Are Dying an Inglorious Death") makes clear. He writes:

Two growing trends in the media market have become apparent. On one hand, there is the increased number of tabloids destined to the less favored sectors of the population. On the other, magazines directed to those with greater buying power
treat pseudo-celebrities as news.
The first trend has the merit of attracting new readers who were not used to reading newspapers, but has the flaw of sensationalism and shallow news analysis. These tabloids are big sellers.
Nevertheless, they violate the national language with blatant mistakes and underestimate the mental capacity of its readers. The second trend magazines usually have good graphic quality, but stumble by adulating the rich who are not always newsworthy.

I think this is pretty spot-on. At least with my experiences in Rio, nearly every newsstand is littered with these sensationalist tabloids that emphasize violence, sex, and celebrity (and I don't mean that in a codger-y way - many actually put barely-clothed women on the front page of the "newspaper" to draw your attention). If you actually look for a newspaper (again, at least in Rio), your option is usually O Globo, which, as I've commented before, is far from the standard-bearer of journalism that one would generally want. Finding something like the much-better Folha de São Paulo in Rio is not so easy (though no doubt, it's probably simple to find it in São Paulo).

The popular magazines are about as bad. You go to any medical office, dentist, etc., and you're bombarded with magazines that highlight, literally from cover-to-cover, what various celebrities are doing, where they're being seen, with whom they're being seen, etc. I do not exaggerate when I say these popular magazines (which many people even subscribe to in their mail) make People look like a literary review.

And those magazines that are interesting and engaged, offering critical analysis of the news or valuable literary and cultural commentary and production, such as Carta Capital or Piauí, respectively, are usually priced too high for anybody outside of the upper-middle class to spend money on them.

So print-journalism in Brazil is in a sorry state of affairs, no question, and it has been for a long time (at least since the dictatorship, when O Globo owner Roberto Marinho hopped in bed with the military in order to eliminate his opposition via censorship and repression).However, dos Santos blames two peculiar and specific culprits for this decline: the federal government, and the internet. According to dos Santos,

The end of the diploma requirement to be a professional journalist in Brazil is yet another chapter in the bitter story of Brazilian printing press' decadence. Days before the fateful decision by the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF), the Press Law had been dismantled, an act which left the sector legally vulnerable.

It should be noted that in almost every country there are legal mechanisms which regulate mass media. Here, it seems barbarity rules.

Dos Santos also admits that the print media itself has been complicit in lowering standards, but leading the editorial by blaming the government seems lazy and ignorant of the previous 30-40 years of Brazilian journalism. I don't know if the diploma requirement to be a professional journalist really matters or not - dos Santos offers absolutely no argument as to why this is a bad thing, but rather assumes the horrible-ness of the ruling of the Supreme Court is self-evident. What is more, while more Brazilians are getting into university, it's still a very class-based system, where students from the middle- and upper-class stand a far better chance of getting into the top schools (all of which are state-run, rather than private schools, and all of which are free of tuition) than the poor. This is due to a variety of reasons, including the fact that one often has to attend an expensive private secondary school in order to gain the education required to enter the free, public universities; the poor quality of many public high schools, which the poor overwhelmingly attend while the middle- and upper-classes attend private schools; the difficulty of the exams requiring at least a year's worth of private preparation, something which costs a lot of money; and the lack of time many of the poor have to study for the entrance exams as they work to make ends meet. All of this does nothing to say how qualified somebody is as a journalist; as with any field, the simple possession of a degree does nothing to speak to your ability or knowledge. Dos Santos seems to be valorizing a diploma in a dangerous way for a society in which a majority still do not have access to a college education. And to be clear, the court's decision may ultimately be bad for Brazilian journalism, but there's nothing in dos Santos's argument to explain why that's the case, and he seems to be resting his opinion on a particularly class-based framework that excludes the possibility that many who do not have a college education in journalism could be and are still very capable journalists.

As for the internet, he blames its rapid pace for the fact that "daily newspapers got carried away by the speed of information, as if the radio had not been invented long before these new media. Cover page editors insist on publishing obvious and repetitive headlines which do not add to the facts." While I completely agree that the headlines are "repetitive" and lack facts, that isn't really the internet's fault - having looked at newspapers from the 80s and 90s (and earlier), it's been like that for a long time, honestly since at least O Globo's ascendance (though I'm not sure O Globo is to blame; it may be, but it may not, and it would be a worthwhile subject for a journalism or history dissertation unto itself).

At the end, I agree with dos Santos's specific complaints about Brazilian journalism. It is sensationalist; it is simplistic; it is celebrity-focused; it does lack critical analysis; it is focused on profits. However, the reasons are much more complicated and deeply rooted than dos Santos allows for in his blaming of the government and the internet. Even when he does say that journalism has taken steps itself to dumb itself down (particularly over the "profit" issue), he neglects other major factors, including (but not limited to) more than 10 years of censorship during the military dictatorship, which forced newspapers to reduce the complexity of reporting and analysis. Thus, while dos Santos's complaints are fully legitimate, I think he's more than a bit simplistic in diagnosing why Brazilian print media has arrived to the point it is at today.

Monetizing new media: is it time?

The new media world went into outrage last week when Newsday announced that it would no longer be offering its online content for free. We’ve received online information for free for so long that it is almost unthinkable to have to pay for it. In 2007, the New York Times quickly realized that it made more money from advertising revenue than it ever would from online subscriptions. And the sooner news organizations accept that, the better.

However, in the aftermath of possibly one of the worst weeks for the news industry, it’s perhaps important to consider other options. Left with little choice, journalists and media scholars have been debating business models the past couple of months – about the same amount of time that I have been in the non-existent journalism job market, so I figured I might as well look for light at the end of the tunnel!

Andrew Currah of Oxford University, proposed recently in a Reuters report that “kitemarks” - similar to watermarks - could be a reasonable solution to this monetization problem. Kitemarks, which are certifications that would distinguish supposedly reliable online content from noise on the Web, have stirred a controversy in the democratic world of cyberspace. But as Currah explained to Poynter, the idea is not, as some people perceive it, intended to be an"apartheid between bloggers and journalists,” but rather a digital label that would enhance transparency.

Media Standards Trust, the organization that proposed it, insists this would not be a top-down stamp of approval, but more like a cyber postcode that would enable users to determine who the information came from, primary sources, updates, modifications, and journalistic standards adhered to. Merely integrating and consolidating information might urge users to stay on a page longer, thus stimulating ad revenue. In addition, metatags can aid search engine optimization and social media marketing.

Another thing Currah notes in his Reuters report is that since the Web allows a faster feedback to publishers and writers – in the form of traffic, clickthroughs, clickheats, navigation routes, unique visitors, and so on, it may enable them to review performances of individual reporters, and redirect resources to the right stories.

What is deeply concerning about this sort of quest for eyeballs is the kind of populist news that results from it. As Currah notes, such clickstream data is beginning to define the agenda of news organizations as opposed to editorial values. Add to this the fact that some newspapers are now using such Web metrics in order to determine pay for their journalists, and monetization comes a full – and terrifying - circle.

Web sites that keep tabs of such data are beginning to focus on soft news features, such as celebrity gossip and sports. One of the biggest advantages of Internet news is that the vastness and tolerance of the Web allows very specific information to be conveyed to niche audiences. This is fast eroding.

Currah insists that instead of diluting the quality of news in this quest for high volume traffic, publishers should pursue a more targeted approach to acquire readers; editorial judgment should be invested in “anchoring” particular types of audiences by offering content that is specific to both the brand of the news outlet and its reader interests. Here, Web sites would follow “editorial isolines” as opposed to the windsocks that merely blow in the direction of clickstream data. In addition to restoring the quality of news, this would prove to be a more sustainable business model. For one, it would help advertisers who seek engaged readers as opposed to mere glancers.

OJR’s Eric Ulken makes an interesting deduction, where he questions if revenue is being diluted on individual sites due to the re-packaging of stories. Coming from a marketing standpoint, he sort of echoes Currah’s conclusions, by stating that if news organizations focused more on unique stories that cannot be found anywhere else on the Web, they would significantly increase their chances of attracting and retaining visitors, and prevent the divvying up of eyeballs, if you will.

There is no saying that kitemarks and editorial isolines will solve new media's revenue-generating problems, however. Chris Anderson of Wired has long proposed freeconomics as a possible way to charge readers for content, an idea that has been tried, tested, and dropped, time and again, but is probably more acceptable at a time when the media industry is clearly imploding. Giving away part of the item for free (think Adobe) and then charging for the complete or enhanced product has worked for companies like Amazon and Netflix. But this is going to be hard to work into a business that has not only always provided content for free, but also one where the product is considered a universal right.

The option of micropayments is creeping back into the conversation, a concept that may be aided by the launch of Amazon’s e-book on the iPhone. Walter Isaacson makes a fairly convincing case for micropayments for worthy news content. Sites could charge users very small amounts for purchase of individual articles, features, and even blog posts through a one-click system, he writes. David Carr similarly pined for an iTunes-style paid-content system for newspapers a couple months ago.

I would have no problem with the idea of micropayments, if it didn’t so conflict with the distributive and democratic nature of the Internet.

Perhaps more in line with the philosophy of cyberspace is a word that seems to be on every media pundit’s mouth today: Kachingle. A Web content payment service that proposes to acquire donations from Web surfers on a voluntary basis, Kachingle medallions would give readers a choice to donate money to the sites they frequent; this would allow them to support anything from a media stalwart to an obscure blog. Kachingle would then divvy up the amount a reader donates among the various sites he or she wishes to contribute to, based on the frequency of visits and time spent on each site. Virtually any publisher could showcase his or her Web site on Kachingle.

Steve Outing has the details, and his willing endorsement.

It’s hard to imagine that the media industry could survive on such a free-willed concept but for the fact that many non-profit news organizations are already doing so. Think of it as tech-savvy public funding.

And the Marathon of Pundit Vacuity Has Begun

Some guy (I have no clue who) on CBS (I don't have cable) just pointed out that, with Liddy Dole's expected loss, this will be the first time in 50 years that there will be nobody named "Dole" or "Bush" holding a public national office. Ladies and gentlemen, we have an early contender for most "so what?" statement of the night.

Consider this an open thread on stupid punditry (or anything else) for the night.

CNN - Most Self-Congratulatory Name in News?

I'm not the resident media-theory person, so apologies up front to Sarah and Karthika. That said, this has to be some of the most disgusting, vulgar self-promotion I've ever seen in the media:

"CNN forces Obama to release VP pick early"

This headline was (of course) on the front page of CNN.com and on its "Political Ticker." I understand that all media outlets to one degree or another have to try to get the proverbial "scoop" ahead of everybody else. Still, this is some of the most self-congratulatory crap I've ever seen, and it's clear that CNN really doesn't care so much about politics as it does about selling its image as the "most trusted name in news," and all the profits that come with viewership. Jon Stewart nailed it on the head.

Just How Low Brazil's Media Can Go

Courtesy of the Latin Americanist comes this linked report on Aecio Neves and the media's treatment of him. Aecio Neves is the grandson of Tancredo Neves, former Minas Gerais senator and the first president-elect after Brazil's military dictatorship (Tancredo died after the election but before the inauguration, leading to his running-mate Jose Sarney assuming office in an interesting game of politicking that is too fascinating but lengthy to go into here). Neves has been the favorite for the PSDB's candidate in 2010 among political analysts since even before Lula's re-election in 2006, when many thought he'd make a run (he declined, saying he was too "young and inexperienced" to be president, as he wasn't even 50 at the time; he'll be 50 in March 2010).

I see absolutely no reason not to believe anything in the report itself. O Globo is even more evil than it comes out in the report. O Globo's political, social, cultural, and economic ideologies have always been patnetnntly clear - it's the worst kind of right-wing propaganda machine hiding behind the facade of "news." It is already throwing its support behind Aecio because it suspects that it can get the best relations with him if he is elected. O Globo enjoyed a love affair with the presidency during the Fernando Henrique Cardoso years, and Neves is from the same party (PSDB). Additionally, while Lula has remained cordial, he hasn't just bowed in when Globo put pressure on him in the media, nor has he given O Globo the kind of unrestricted access it wants of a president. Indeed, it's not a stretch to say Lula has been the worst president for O Globo in over 40 years, for a number of reasons: Lula has refused to so openly go into Globo's pocket as his predecessors (although his government has still been cordial to Globo); Globo's ownership and political line is right-wing (Roberto Marinho, O Globo's late founder, was in bed with the dictatorship from the 1960s to the 1980s, even going so far as to describe a million-person protest against the dictatorship in the early 1980s as a gathering for Sao Paulo's 400th anniversary, and NOT a political protest); and Lula's class, background (as laborer and labor leader who never went to college), and speaking (he's not the most intellectual speaker) all are exactly the kinds of things O Globo reacts against and tries to put down across both its news and entertainment programs. That O Globo would throw itself behind Neves so early (elections aren't until 2010, let's not forget) is no big surprise, and fits in perfectly with O Globo's efforts to not just influence, but directly change Brazil's political scene and its right-wing ideologies.

As for Estado de Minas Gerais, the newspaper, that's no less of a non-surprise to me. Minas prides itself on its political importance, and between the 1890s and 1930s, Minas and Sao Paulo alternated presidents, with each state taking turns providing Brazil's next president (in a political period called "Cafe com Leite" - coffee with milk. Minas was Brazil's leading dairy producer at the time, and Sao Paulo, coffee). However, since 1930, Minas has had only one president, Juscelino Kubitschek (the man who moved the capital to Brasilia), and he left office in 1960 (again, Tancredo Neves, while elected president, never served). Estado de Minas has nothing to lose in supporting Neves, and plenty to gain, both in terms of being a leader of regional identity, and in the rewards it may reap from Neves should he win.

The one thing I would say (and this is far from a defense of the man himself) is I'm almost certain Neves is not behind this. Again, the Brazilian media, and especially O Globo, has been one of the fiercest practitioners of self-censoring journalists who do not toe the company line politically. Certainly, Neves can and has exploited O Globo's favoritism towards him, but in that, I can't blame him; any politician who had O Globo throwing itself at him or her would do well to take advantage, particularly because pissing off O Globo can very realistically end your political career; it's simply an organization that you do not want to piss off unless you really have nothing to lose, or owe nothing to O Globo (and certainly, Lula owes nothing to O Globo). So it may be Machiavellian of Neves to take advantage, but I'm sure that he was not the one who has initiated all this - indeed, O Globo was really behind Neves in 2006, too, until he simply said he wasn't going to run for president yet.

I'd like to say that this report was really shocking to me, but it's not; it's still depressing, but the fact that Brazilian media, and especially O Globo, is a corrupt, monopolistic organization that serves as right-wing propaganda and worries more about its commercial power than reporting the news is no big secret. Still, it's worth watching the report, particularly for those wanting to better understand how Brazilian media operates.

Ronaldo's Mistake and the Brazilian Media's Response

I hadn't planned on writing about soccer-star Ronaldo having (mistakenly) picked up some transvestite prostitutes. It just didn't seem relevant. I really don't care what Ronaldo (or anybody else) does or does not do in his spare time, and hadn't thought the story was really worth writing about. So he apparently picked up a couple of prostitutes, only to discover they were transvestites. Embarrassing for him, yes, but who cares? Prostitution is legal in Brazil, so he wasn't doing anything illegal. And not to put too fine a point on it, but picking up transvestite prostitutes with ease in Brazil is well within the realm of possibility - they often gather in places like Copacabana, and are not too hard to find in Lapa on any given night, and the fact that many have facial hair removed via lasers or even have surgical procedures to remove their Adam's apple can lead to some confusion, I suppose. Certainly there must be more important things going on in Brazil, right? Why would I blog about this?

Well, I wasn't going to. But the New York Times writeup hits upon something important in this - the media's obsession with this story (and stories like it).

But not all of Brazil’s soccer fans seem ready to forgive and forget. Reports of Ronaldo’s wild night, which ended around 8 a.m., have become Page 1 news here.

To be clear, the criticism he is facing is nothing compared with the media frenzy that would probably have erupted in other countries where prostitution is illegal — and sexual mores more rigid. Still, the fact that Ronaldo’s misadventure has been front-page news here for several days — and that some cartoonists and blogs have made him the butt of jokes, even as other commentators have said his behavior is unbecoming of a role model — is evidence that soccer stars are held to a different standard.

That last sentence is almost irrelevant - since when did many role models meet such high standards? By and large, those people who are the focus of the public eye are sports stars, celebrities, etc. - not the people who should be role models (good parents, teachers, etc). Nor am I fully convinced by the article's discussion of sports and masculinity (anytime anybody cites Roberto DaMatta as their sole authority on the matter, I'm extremely skeptical for reasons too complext to go into here).

But that's neither here nor there. The real issue here is the media itself. There are a lot of important things going on in Brazil, yet what is making front-page news there (and even drawing the gaze of the international media)? Ronaldo's embarrassing mistake.

And unfortunately, that is just the way of mainstream media in Brazil. It is, quite simply, the most sensationalist media source I've ever seen. Not to fully excuse my lack of recent blogging, but there hasn't been much from me on Brazil lately because the media is just miserable. Prior to the Ronaldo story, the headlines had been (and continue to be) overrun with the murder of a (middle-class, white) 5-year-old girl in Sao Paulo. Even the Madeleine McCann story still is present, as O Globo ran a special on "Madeleine McCann -One year later" [Remember her? "Sure, she went missing when her parents left her alone with her younger twin siblings in what was obviously a vulgar abuse of parental authority, but that's not important - THERE'S A WHITE BRITISH GIRL MISSING IN PORTUGAL!!! STOP THE PRESSES!!!" For whatever reason, that story was huge in Brazil for months.].

I'm certainly not versed enough in communications and media studies to answer the "chicken-and-egg" question of whether the media gives this to the people because it's what they want, or if things like this are what the people want because the media gives it to them (I see no reason to believe it's a bit of both). But to find anything about how Brazil's economy is doing, real issues, or even how the government is doing, is really difficult in Brazil's major media sources.

And wrestling isn't sensationalist?

I recently wrote about the bizarre (and accurate) historical analogy in the patently faked story of the death of WWE's Vincent McMahon. However, given the double-murder-and-suicide of Chris Benoit, the story has been justifiably buried, as apparently (I go on reports here, as I'm in Brazil), Vince McMahon introduced Raw last night as a tribute to Benoit (before it was clear it was a double-murder-suicide). The burial of the storyline of McMahon's "death" is without question the tasteful thing to do here.

What's a little less tasteful is WWE's condemnation of the media for being "sensationalist" for reporting that steroids and roid rage were behind the incident (though at 6:20 PM Eastern time, the discovery of steroids at his house was breaking news, but we cannot fault WWE for writing a statement earlier in the day before this discovery was announced in the last 10 minutes as I write). No doubt, the media is sensationalist, and they are certainly trying to both try to explain why one of their most popular stars did this, and perhaps trying to deflect the (now inevitable) look towards the use of steroids in wrestling. However, it is more than a little ironic that the WWE, who just buried a storyline about its owner being "dead" and played it up (complete with a "federal investigator" reporting to the webpage), is now criticizing the news media for its sensationalism.

...UPDATE: Just to add to Lyrad's point on the exploitation of wrestlers' bodies with little concern for their health, see this scary list of wrestlers who have died before turning 50 since 1997, many from drugs or heart attacks (and the list doesn't even include recently-passed-away "Sensational" Sherri.)