Thank you Miriam for your posting. I appreciate your efforts (and those of other members of the media) to bring truth to light. You infer that some people do not seek the truth. Unfortunately, this is true. However, there are many people who seek the truth and do take action based on such knowledge. Please do not underestimate the value of the work that you and others like yourself are doing. Our combined efforts do make a difference.

I am sorry, but I find this entire line of doting on journalists to be self-serving, insular, idealistic and naive. Do you really expect journalists to receive different treatment than any other human being? What makes you special? I was a journalist for the first six years of my career, but I never embraced this feeling of superiority and entitlement that seems to be a hallmark of reporters. Just look at some of these notions:

Quote: One has to admit that Western journalism, mainly U.S. journalism, has had better days. How can they define as impartial some of the stories printed in the last five years in the American press supporting Washington’s version of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Journalists reported what the Bush administration said. That is their job: to report. When evidence came to light that contradicted Washington's version, that was reported too.

Quote: The press that once released the Pentagon Papers rejecting the argument that to do so was unpatriotic behavior, accepted unacceptable surveillance and limitations in the Bush years.

Those are some serious allegations. Where is your evidence of this? Or do you expect, as so many journalists do, that no sources will suffice?

Quote: In the first months and years after 9/11, the national belief that winning the war justified all sacrifice, even sacrificing the truth about very controversial issues, leaders, decisions and information, captured the U.S. press. Nothing justifies censorship or lack of transparency.

Where is your evidence that journalists in the US succumbed to censorship or purposefully hid things from their readers? You, as a journalist yourself, are supposed to report facts. Instead you clearly have an agenda in search of facts.

Quote: A day will come when it will be necessary to analyze this period sincerely and with self-criticism.

It seems you are analyzing it insincerely and with plenty of judgementalism simply because you hate US policy.

Quote: The journalists are often viewed as bearers of inconvenient truths in many countries, even in the most democratic ones.

They also hold tremendous power despite the fact they were not elected to their positions, are rarely held accountable when they are wrong and seem to enjoy controversy for its own sake. They also are focused on minutiae and rarely step back to look at the big picture.

Quote: In his biography, unfortunately, there is a shadow: he lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and because of this mistake, many young British soldiers have died.

That statement is a perfect example of why journalists have the reputation of wearing their biases on their shirtsleeves.

Quote: Is he a feral beast because of these deaths? I don’t think so, but this error is more harmful than occasionally wrong news.

News in this era can partially shape the outcome of wars. Wrong news can kill far more people than you accuse Blair of killing. You've heard the expression, "the pen is mightier than the sword"? You have a tremendous responsibility and you seem to care more about your own politics and agenda than this responsibility. But that is normal for journalists today.

..."nothing"?

so journalists are *that* sacred?

Jesus was tortured and crucified, journalists are better than Jesus?

Blair lied about a lot more than WOMD, and if he didn't have that "quality" he might still be popular today. I would guess that disingenuity would wreak havoc for journalists, and presidents, alike. No one is above the consequences of their actions. The question is merely who determines what those consequences are, and why. But anything can be "justified", given enough time and effort. Just ask Tony Blair.

Likewise with such statements as "nothing justifies censorship or lack of transparency. A day will come when it will be necessary to analyze this period sincerely and with self-criticism."

Spouting these absolutes undermines your credibility as a journalist...and raises doubt about the true intent of your article. One would think that a serious journalist would realize the effect of such hyperbole, and avoid making such grandiose statements in her own articles.

...ok let's just say that it is unrealistic.

It's so sad to hear about the crimes and political issues in Brazil. I'd say the law is to weak and easy to be broken, specialy for those who knows the law sistem and its slowness.
Land of law breakers with no impunity.
If they want to improve the sistem, touch in the root, make the laws iqual to the poor and rich!!!

Greg, a reporter's job is not simply to repeat what a source has said, but to put it into context to inform the reader. Otherwise, the reader could simply read the press release. While Ms. Leitao's argument might benefit from a more detailed description of the failings of US journalism, her column may have suffered the footnoting. I lived in Brazil during the run-up to the war and I believe her opinion is widely-held both there and in the UK, where I live now. The US media's lazy habit of repeating claims without fact-checking nor relevant context resulted in 72% of Americans thinking Saddam Hussein was responsible for Sept 11 (per a Feb '03 CNN poll). In the "best days" of US journalism, I think you and Ms. Leitao would both agree, Americans should be better informed on the causes of such an important topic.

Congratulations Miriam for your article about the journalistic coverage in Rio's favelas. Reporter as you who make us believe in better days.

"The US media's lazy habit of repeating claims without fact-checking nor relevant context resulted in 72% of Americans thinking Saddam Hussein was responsible for Sept 11 (per a Feb '03 CNN poll)."

...even if that percentage is accurate, which I highly doubt, the US media was no more responsible for that than you were for saying it, just now. The only thing we know for sure about this topic is that according to you, CNN came up with that number in a poll. From there, you generalize off the deep end. What is more likely to have been the case, is that 72% of Americans got the impression that Hussein was responsible for 9/11 from the Bush Administrations' obsession with bringing him down, in 2003. Your comment is almost as insignificant as the original article, here. The US media as a whole, lazy or not lazy, is hardly responsible for what Americans believe, as a whole. And who exactly knew the facts about this, that was actually going to tell the truth? Certainly not the Bush administration as they tried to push the world into attacking Iraq. But still, can you not see that if they actually thought that he was responsible for 9/11, they would have been giddy and eager to attack Iraq all on their own, just for that? I don't think that anyone, in the media or otherwise, was seriously saying that SH was responsible for 9/11. I think you just have a lot of dumb, ignorant people in this country who believed that, and that was reflected in the poll. As other people have said, Brazil has a problem with lawlessness in the favelas. So, if a journalist goes into a favela and attempts to investigate child sexual abuse and is chopped up and burned by the criminals running the favelas, for his trouble, this is a systematic attack on journalism that is undeserved? How much of the consequences of rampant stupidity are undeserved? If 72% of Americans actually believed that Saddam Hussen was responsible for 9/11, I'd say this about that, too. How about all the journalists that were killed by American as well as insurgent forces, in Iraq? Many of whom were embedded with American troops? Is that a systematic attack on journalism, too? No, it's just stupid. You don't go into a war zone and expect to not get killed. Daniel Pearl, likewise. How about an American goes into Pakistan and attempts to interview terrorists? Great idea. Even so, violence against journalists is one thing (I'm sure that snooping is a risk, world-wide), criticism of journalism or specific journalists is yet another, and in no case can we say that journalists are above criticism or that any and all violence against journalists is either unexpected or undeserved. People have to take the risks in mind when they do their jobs, they can't say "Oh, I'm doing my job, you can't criticize me or attack me for doing my job". BS. It's your job, you chose to do it...you are choosing how to do it. How can you not be responsible for what you do, simply because you get paid for it? Didn't you choose to take that job? Who has that privilege in life, to be above reproach, criticism, condemnation, even retribution or attack? If you are a journalist and you really believe this, then I hope that your body armor is as strong as your faith.

...this does highlight one important thing about journalism. It has no significance beyond the willingness of the population to alter their thinking as a result, and to take action as a result of altering their thinking. If people are willing to believe an obvious untruth and to engage in immoral not to mention illegal acts as a result, there is little or nothing that can be done about this by responsible, intelligent, moral people. Whether they are journalists or not. We all know that there are rapists, robbers and muderers out there. In spite of the fact that rapes, robberies and murders are reported on a daily basis. The US media could have "fact checked" what the Bush administration was saying, all day long. People believed their lies anyway. They *wanted* to believe their lies. They did not want to believe that the Administration was lying. If the US media had published information literally proving that the Bush administration was lying about Saddam Husseins' involvement in 9/11, what would have been different about that compared to all the other lies that they have told, on so many other topics? Would that make them stop lying or make certain segments of the American public not believe them? Would the publication of facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts actually change the publics' mind about the US media? Or would they simply respond by saying that the US media is a bunch of liberal spinners? Except for Fox news and the other conservative news groups, blogs websites, etc, which are right-wing spinners...anyway, wouldn't *some* people in the media be loved by *some* members of the public and hated by others, regardless? Do you think that the American public has any real integrity, cares about facts vs fiction, doesn't want to be lied to, is willing to stand up for right against wrong? Is criminal activity somehow legitimate because right-wingers are doing it, instead of liberals? When the management of the US Department of Justice, when the upper echelons of the executive branch knowingly and consistently break the law, and engage in further lawbreaking by covering it up, is that good or bad? And if these people are bad people, what do you think they are going to care about a bunch of liberal journalists whining in the media? Their "base" doesn't even read those liberal publications! They've all been written off because...they are liberals!

If you are in Brazil in a inherently-lawless favela and you are trying to support law and order in the favela, you are the enemy of the people in the inherently-lawless favela. What do you expect? Why do you complain about it in a mass-market publication? Do you think that people do not know that the favelas are lawless regions of Brazil, or that they do not know what "lawless region" means? Who are you trying to appeal to, the people in the favelas or the people who would not go in them because they are lawless regions? Do you expect someone to read your story about the sexual exploitation of young girls by drug gangs in the favelas, and go into the favelas to rescue the young girls? No, they are much more likely to go into the favela, and buy some drugs and a young girl, than to actually go into a favela and try to stop these druggies from exploiting young girls. And what kind of sane person would try to do that?

exellent anlysis and posting. journalist lost their credebility for mirage populrity by exposing useless matter with the help of politician and sensalise this to make people crazy.we all know politician used to do this to meet his political goal.while journalsit fool the people.other hand in few years due to electronic media and celebratity status of journalist forced the journalsit to compromise on integrety and mission by siding with power of the goverment.if they would be neutral they would be honoured by the people.the kidnap of case must be investigated by uno commission and the culprit should be punished and if he is involved in any thing that is not duty of a journalsit then he should be also punished.so it can be example for the evil doer and dishonest journalist.

I'm a reporter who lived in one of Rio's favelas for several months just a few weeks before Tim Lopes was murdered. Shadow Cities, my book on the favelas and other squatter communities around the world, came out in 2005.

There is no excuse for Brazilian journalists to come under attack. But it is an unfortunate truth that they tend to cover the favelas only "to report on crime, abuses and threats," as Miriam Leitao so aptly puts it. Most favela dwellers, however, are not criminals and have nothing to do with abuse or threats. Indeed, they tolerate the drug dealers because they have found them to be more honorable than the cops, who are corrupt, disrespectful, and wantonly violent.

Also, reporters who seek to honor Tim Lopes might look at this: according to an article (in Portuguese: http://www.timlopes.com.br/central_globo_jornalismo.htm) by the director of Central Globo de Jornalismo, Lopes went to do an uncover report on a baile funk dance party at the Vila Cruzeiro favela at 8 p.m. The problem is that anyone with a bit of knowledge of these public parties could have told him that they don't get started till around midnight. Someone set Lopes up by advising him to arrive many hours too early, thus compromising his undercover work.

Oh my God! I had never read such absurd comments anywhere.
Many guys who wrote here really didn't understand anything! They don't know about Brazil and it's problems and they really couldn't get what Ms Leitão explained about the reality of her profession in Brazil.
Miriam Leitão is one of the best journalist in the country. She NEVER said that journalists are sacred!
It was really an exellent anlysis and posting.

Rita Higa

I guess it comes down to this: I want to know what is happening in Palestine. I don't give a fly-specked rat butt about what happens in drug hovels of Brazil. So why would any journalist choose THAT beat when there is so much important news to report?

I really don't think that the people posting here who have never been in Brasil will ever be able to understand the favelas or the people living there. For the most part, they are some of the most industrious people in the country. They have develped these dwelling in places that the upper class could not, or would not, build. Consequently, they have some of the best views of the city of Rio. True, drugs have been the bane of their existance for the past 30 years but many manage to make a meager living, despite these problems.

I married a Brazilian 31 years ago in Niteroi. This was the time that the military dictatorship was near the end. I have made many trips to the Rio area and have seen so many changes, paticuarly in the level of violence. Because of the laws, children can commit murder and have very little in the way of punishment. Thus, gang and drug dealers can use children to perfom tasks that would land them in prison for a long time.

It is true that there is corruption in the civil and military police but that can be said about any police organization anywhere in the world. There are good cops there too.

Until Brasil develops a very strong middle class, the distance of the very rich and the very poor will remain large. I am in hopes that this happens because I find Brazilians to be the most friendly, outgoing and joyfull people in the world.

It's useful for us Americans who kvetch about the tribulations of our lives to hear from a place where life is more tenuous and mistakes are more often fatal.

Ms. Letao may present journalists in their best light, but I didn't read any claims to sainthood.

Please note that Ted that does little to refute Ms. Letao's assertions. He tips his hand stating his assumption that she hates Americans.

I haven't read Mr. Neuwirth's book, but googled him, wikied him, and visited his blog. No doubt of his efforts or sincerity. I'd like to challenge his comparison of drug dealers and police. I'd venture that the favela inhabitants accommodation with the drug dealers is primarily pragmatic. The drug dealers know the people of the favelas. They're nearer by. They're just as heavily armed as the police and TOTALLY unencumbered by the law. Their vengeance is likely to be more precise than the police. It's better self-preservation to cooperate with the local drug lords than intermittently present police.

". I am in hopes that this happens because I find Brazilians to be the most friendly, outgoing and joyfull people in the world."

I'm glad to see that all that drug use and other criminal activity has a good side.

cc

Get off your sofa and get a life. There is no drugs and crime in your neighborhood?

In spite of your distasteful comments,Mr Martiniano, I have read some clever testimonies here, so, here goes a free advice: if you're not interested, the door is open, surely, no one would dare to prevent you exiting. :)

Mr. Martiniano,

There is no Palestine! I have not found it on any world map. There are countries in the middle east that could very well qualify as "hovels." What an awful looking place those countries are.

As a Brazilian who lives in the United States I AM especially interested in News from my country of birth and read with misgivings a text from the Brazilian journalist Miriam Leitão

The author is a “Globo” employee, a TV Net work and publisher which enjoys the highest audience in Brazil and, therefore, is among the most import organizations that shapes opinion in that country. They use this politically and perhaps Mrs. Piggy (a translation of “Leitão”) is serving the likes of Hugo Chávez more than the truth she swears she seeks when she lashes her tongue on the US foreign policies and thereby foments hatred against America, a scape goat for the failure of societies not only in South America.

Not even Mrs. Leitão is prescient to the point that she can erase all possibilities that President Bush and Tony Blair were right about the WMD controversy. Sadam gazed the Kurds, had long sought to build atomic weapons and was capable of anything. Maybe he just hid his WMD in neighboring countries like Iran and/or Syria to further embarrass the President Bush’s watch. Even if both were mistaken, the “Better safe than Sorry” principle should apply, especially after 9/11. Sadam was a fearsome dictator. Mrs. Piggy says Mr. Blair made a mistake and then calls him a liar. Does she know the difference between a mistake and a lie?

As to the American press, it is as good as anyone anywhere in the free World, and certainly is not behind Brazil’s, a country that is on top of the list of the most corrupted nations on earth, behind only a couple of African countries. And why does she have to call journalist Tim Lopes black, when he had more White than black blood? And why should anyone care about the color of the skin when judging facts? This only serves division and hatred. Is there any special virtue in being black?

It’s true that President Lula excuses himself by pledging ignorance of facts in which his closest collaborators were involved, and that never before so many scandals erupted. But who knows if the Globo TV Network crack down on Lula’s presidential ship is not due to Globo’s failure, as far as it is known, to “borrow” from BNDES (a federal social and Development bank) some R$5bn (roughly 2,5bn us dollars) to pay debs in array? Also, former rulers suppressed press freedom. Lula complains but does not unduly interfere

Where was Mrs. Leitão when Senator Olavo Pires was brutally assassinated and the press threw a smokescreen on it by falsely linking the victims with drug dealers, following police Chief Tuma’s line of reasoning, now a Senator and since then a Globo protégé? Senator Pires was post mortem acquitted by a Congress Probe Commission, but nobody, including Mrs. Piggy, seems to have done anything to make this truth public. And although a couple of gunmen were caught, those who ordered the murder got Scott free. Well, those who killed journalist Tim Lopes are in jail already. Those who order the assassination of Senator Olavo Pires in 1988 were never even brought to court. Well, it is said that he fought Globo’s business interest in Rondonia and was winning the elections to be it’s governor.

The violence that permeates Rio de Janeiro’s slums is also Fed by journalists and actors, including Globo’s, drug users, as it is well known. It’s also a result of poor Education and irresponsible parenthood. But not even Mrs. Leitão seems ready to tackle the problem because it is politically incorrect even to speak about controlling the people under the poverty line on matters of human reproduction. The midia used to blame the USA for sterilizing women in NE Brazil, our poorest region, and a source of migration that worsen the problems in the slums and increases violence.

In matters of freedom, press or any other, Brazil is to the United States what Bolivia or Venezuela is to Brazil. And in South America, as well as in the Muslim World, it pays to blame all their shortcomings and failed systems on the USA. Hugo Chávez is currently tapping on this source. Its seems that Mrs. Piggy is on the same track.

who is great /
mrs Leitao or/ Globo network?

if she writes in a underground newspaper,we never know´s about .
who´s great?or better?
thanks
carlos

who´s great/better ?
mrs Leitao or Globo network(marinho)
if she write or comment in a litle news,we never know´s about
thanks
carlos

Ms. Leitão omits to mention the problem of police and judicial corruption in Brazil, which have produced a number of high-profile arrests recently, especially in the Rio-Sampa corridor.

And she forgets to mention the case of José Xavier Messias, the TV Globo Rio reporter arrested for passing information from confidential journalistic sources to the bicheiros of Rio -- the numbers racketeers and operators of illegal gambling halls who also fund militias, like the one run by Inspector Tostes and "parapolitical" elected officials in the state, like Lins. And who are now under investigation for fixing the results of Carnaval this year through bribes and intimidation -- Globo's exclusive coverage is its Super Bowl weekend.

After the Jayson Blair scandal at the NYT, senior editors had to pack up and go. At Globo, the only fallout from the Xavier Messias incident was that all mentions of the man were removed from the Globo.com Web site. Why does Ali Kamel still have a job?

Likewise, although Brazil has signed international treaties that commit it to control police violence, and the Rio governor promised to take the "big skull" armored vehicle out of community policing -- a promise broken -- the Rede Globo's Fantástico recently ran a special on BOPE and the "big skull."

They simply handed BOPe officers a camera, edited the results, and ran it without critical perspective or even clarifying factual narration. The results were jaw-dropping: Devoid of information, even as police are shown doing absurdly unprofessional things -- such as shooting someone, leaving the area, then returning hours and hours later to so whether the person had died or not. "Look, there's his blood. Told you I got him," says one BOPE trooper. If that were one of the policeman shown on FOX's "Cops," we would be following that story as it moved over to Court TV for the criminal negligence trial.

Globo did not even bother to send a reporter along. It was essentially a piece of advertorial for a police unit that has long been the subject of widespread concern about corruption, extrajudicial executions, extreme indiscriminate violence and human rights violations.

I live in Brazil with my wife, monitor the quality of Globo journalism, and would submit to you that if anyone has the moral authority to speak in the name of Brazilian journalists, it is not the editorial management of Globo.

Globo journalism (with the emerging exception of the G1 Internet news portal) is, as Brazilians say, a porcaria. It is viciously slanted and winds up on the wrong side of the facts so often that if malice is not the explanation of it then we might have to suppose that a black hole of antiprofessionalism has swept through Globo studios.

I have veen collecting case studies of such instances for several years now and studying them from the point of view, for example, of the New York Times guidelines on integrity put out by Bill Keller in 2004. Globo journalism fails miserably with regularity on such fundamental points as giving equal times to all parties to a public case or controversy. It is simply, simply dreadful.

In my view, the real situation here is that Brazilian journalists are under siege by their editorial managers, forced to toe the editorial line and micromanaged to the point that, as one Gloo journalist said, they become little more than marionettes. Working conditions are awful and the job market is abysmal because monopolies like Globo crush competition that might create more jobs at competing venues for news and creative.

Ask Ms. Leitão, for example, if she signed the petition circulated by João Marinho endorsing Globo's elections coverage last year. Those who refused to sign have been fired.

As to what Myrdal called "the folklore of corruption," invoked in its crudest form by Ms. Leitão here: Brazilian federal police mounted 30 anticorruption investigations during the 8 years of Cardoso. Since 2003, they have mounted over 400.

Does Ms. Leitão not think that might help account for the increased frequency of "scandals"?

With rare exception, Western media is relatively unbiased.

Consider the "New York Times" (NYT), "The Washington Post" (TWP), and the "Wall Street Journal" (WSJ). NYT is considered to be liberal. TWP is considered to be moderate. WSJ is considered to be conservative.

NYT, TWP, and WSJ are relatively fair in their reporting, but they are distinctly biased in their commentary: editorial pages and analysis columns. Due to this bias in the commentary, we correctly identify each paper as liberal, moderate, or neoconservative.

However, if we move beyond the commentary and look at the actual reports (i.e., news articles), all 3 newspapers give relatively unbiased reporting.

Yet, are newspapers obligated to give unbiased commentary in addition to unbiased reports? No. Commentary, by its very nature, is an expression of opinion.

Consider the opinion of the WSJ. Its editiorial position is the following, on the matter of Iraq.

1. Sending a puny 170,000 soldiers to invade and occupy Iraq is an excellent idea.
2. The current violent mayhem in Iraq is an outstanding accomplishment that is worth the price of 4,000 dead American soldiers and 30,000 seriously wounded American soldiers.
3. The roughly 2 million Iraqi refugees created by the violent mayhem in Iraq is not the responsibility of the American people (who overwhelmingly supported invading Iraq). Washington should not accept them into the USA. That Washington is willing to accept merely 7000 Iraqi refugees is an overly generous act.

Should we condemn the editorial position of the WSJ? Yes. That position is atrocious. Most reasonable people know that the occupation needed a minimum of 370,000 Western soldiers and that 4000 American soldiers died for nothing.

The WSJ, in its editorial pages, is biased in favor of the neoconservative position.

However, the WSJ is relatively unbiased in its news articles.

reference
---------
The Number of Soldiers for a Successful Occupation
--------------------------------------------------
http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/#115853308310007247

I know nothing of Brazil or South America. News from south of Mexico is rarely reported in detail in my country.

I do know this: her condemnation of the US press regarding their complicity in the WMD issue is misinformed.

The US, and indeed, worldwide, press reported quickly and accurately the findings of Hans Blix and other weapons inspectors. Also:
--It reported the observed fact that Iraq had WMD in the past (as evidenced by thousands of gassed civilians).
--It reported the consensus opinion from 2 prior US administrations, congresses, and intelligence committees that the WMD would surely still exist.
--It reported the opinion of the entire Bush administration that the results from a small sample of inspections was hardly evidence of compliance.
--It reported the opinion of the French government and diplomats that the same small sample of inspections was evidence of the intent to comply.
--It reported the fact that the UN no-fly zones were challenged daily.
--It reported the fact that the "evidence" presented by Colin Powell at the UN did not support the administrations claim of non-compliance.
--It reported the fact that WMD as a motive for war was disingenuous of the Bush administration. It is unknown to me whether Blair had other motives, too.
--It reported the dubious integrity of Ahmed Chalabi.

The rest, as they say, is history. Saddam chose to hide his compliance with UN resolutions in order to retain his hegemony of fear throughout the region. A tragic mistake that cost his life and countless others'. I daresay Shakespeare would find a trove of inspiration.

What does this have to do with Brazil? This:

For the press to have independently gone into Iraq to investigate what had actually happened to the extant WMD would've been ludicrous. Yet exactly this is what it seems that she expected them to do.

In Brazil, reporters must make similar decisions, and take the risks that can return the reward, and ignore the government backchat.

What she describes in Rio is tragic and bears scrutiny. But I think that equating the failure to take foolish risks with some sort of Fall of Western journalism is simply incorrect.

We, North of the equator look forward to much more vigorous reporting from your region.

--FIUS

To FIUS

The news services and other media in the US seem to have no interest in Latin America except for the immigration issue. The only way you can get information on contries in our southern hemisphere is via the Internet or relatives. I am married to a Brazilian and my son received his master's degree in Rio. My Portuguese is only fair but good enough to be able to read the newspapers on line.

People in the US are quite uniformed when it comes to global events. A good question for Jeopardy would be, "Language spoken by the majority of people in South America." The answer is Portuguese because Brazil has more people than the rest of South America.

I too hope that our media pays more attention to "south of the border".