Veja speaks, but doesn't explain the connection to Cachoeira.

247 - Just before its Brasília branch director, Policarpo Júnior, and its publisher, Roberto Civita, were summoned by a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, Veja magazine finally defended itself. But it preferred to do so outside the magazine. The text, signed by Eurípedes Alcântara, was only made available online. And it touches on the issue that should bring Veja's editors to Congress: the magazine's relationships with criminal sources, even without mentioning Carlos Cachoeira's name.

In summary, Veja's argument is based on the following points: (1) bad citizens can provide good information, (2) what defines whether or not to publish is the public interest, and (3) illegal wiretaps should only be published if the social harm of not publishing them would be greater.

Veja magazine is under attack because its close relationship with the racketeer has already been demonstrated. In a recording, Carlos Cachoeira boasts about having fired a director of the National Department of Transport Infrastructure (DNIT), Luiz Antônio Pagot. "We screwed him over." In an interview, Pagot says the article was published after he tried to question the poor quality and high costs of Delta, Cachoeira's partner.

Therefore, according to the former director of DNIT, the interest that motivated the Veja report was eminently private, not public.

Polycarp Factor

The most sensitive point concerns the publication of illegal wiretaps. And Veja has, in recent years, used several illegal films and wiretaps produced by Cachoeira. Here is an excerpt from Eurípedes' text:

“Anyone who knowingly benefits from the proceeds of theft, robbery, or other crimes is potentially an accomplice to the perpetrator. For this reason, a journalist who receives an illegally obtained recording and uses it in a report may be exposing themselves to the rigors of the law. Therefore, they should only take this risky step when the cost to society of disregarding the content of the recording is very high. If the personal price of preventing a crime or a series of crimes by publicizing illegal recordings is a minor transgression, the journalist has a duty to consider taking that risk. At VEJA, such cases are never decided individually by a journalist, but by the magazine's management.”

In other words, it's unclear whether Policarpo discussed with the magazine's management the origin of the wiretaps published in recent years. The most notorious is that of Maurício Marinho soliciting bribes at the Post Office. But there were others, such as the tape of an alleged extortion attempt against Cachoeira in a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry in Rio de Janeiro, which prevented the racketeer's arrest. Or, even, the controversial tape from the Hotel Naoum, which revealed meetings between José Dirceu and authorities from Dilma's government.

In the text, Eurípedes does not mention the name of Policarpo Júnior. Nor of Cachoeira. It is not possible to properly classify it as a defense. Read it in full below:

An ongoing reflection

By Euripides Alcantara

Editor-in-Chief of VEJA

"A journalist's ethics cannot vary according to the ethics of the source providing information. Interviewing the Pope doesn't make us saints. Having a corrupt person as an informant doesn't corrupt us."

VEJA has never allowed its pages to be used for any purpose other than the pursuit of the public interest. Whenever a denunciation is published, someone wins and someone loses. One minister falls, and another rises. One political group is harmed, and another political group benefits. These are normal consequences of the disclosure of true facts. In our daily work, these circumstances are so natural to us that we dispense with discussing them. But we must agree that people not directly involved in our work may, in good faith, not fully understand the nature of the good journalism we practice at VEJA. I reflected on our criteria, our relationships with sources of information, and ultimately, our journalistic mission. The result is the text below.

"Journalism is done with sources of information. The journalist is not paid to know. He is paid to discover. For this reason, the relationship between the journalist and his sources deserves constant reflection."

Journalism is done with sources of information. Journalists aren't paid to know; they're paid to discover. For this reason, the relationship between journalists and their sources deserves constant reflection. VEJA professionals follow the written rules of Editora Abril, whose Code of Conduct establishes: “Abril journalists have no working relationship with, nor do they provide services, even occasionally, to, any person, company, or entity that is, or may become, a source of information. Abril never pays interviewees for information of any kind, directly or indirectly. Whenever possible, journalists should pay for lunches and dinners with sources or their representatives. It is up to the professional and their immediate supervisor to define the situations in which the application of this rule may affect the relationship with the source.” (Ethical Practices - Guide for Journalists and Content Producers of Grupo Abril - Supplement to the Code of Conduct.)

In addition to Abril's Code of Conduct, VEJA's editorial staff, in its annual Editorial Plan, reaffirms that "independence" is the highest value of a journalist at the magazine. Independence, the Editorial Plan states, means that reporters do not accept any editorial bargaining with sources in exchange for information. In our daily work, although it is an unwritten rule, we always evaluate the information we receive from sources using as our sole measure the public interest, which is intertwined with journalistic interest. This means that the numerous picturesque or personal, behavioral, or sexual details about authorities and government officials that reach us in the form of photos, videos, and recordings are never used because they are offensive and do nothing to help in understanding public events.

"The lesson for good journalism is clear: bad citizens can, in many cases, be bearers of good information."

Veja's journalists establish a relationship with their sources where it is clear from the outset that it is not a matter of mere exchange. The source will not receive any privileges for providing information, other than the maintenance of confidentiality, should that be in their interest. Sources are never disinterested in the reports they collaborate on by providing information. A corrupt individual who passes on information may want to take revenge on another corrupt individual or hope to disrupt a competitor's business with the government. In both cases, the journalist needs to have an exact understanding of the source's interest and use the information only when and if its disclosure serves the public interest more than the informant's own interests. A murderer who reveals a plan to assassinate the President of the Republic in prison possesses information of public interest – and, through the mechanism of plea bargaining, his sentence may be reduced by providing information that prevents an even worse crime than the one he committed. Therefore, we have a situation where the information is of high quality, but the informant is not, because he is a murderer. The lesson for good journalism is clear: bad citizens can, in many cases, be bearers of good information.

"Quality information is verifiable, relevant, of public interest, and deters corrupt actions."

A respectable reporter doesn't dismiss a source of information about corruption cases simply because the informant is corrupt. But how does one attract and retain such an informant without offering them any advantage? The journalist, aware of the informant's ulterior motives, should try to obtain from them what is relevant to the public interest – and publish it. Most likely, the informant will feel gratified at having achieved the goal of seeing the information made public, and the journalist will also have fulfilled their mission of bringing to light facts that, otherwise, would never be exposed to the cleansing effects of sunlight. It is up to the journalist to distinguish:

A) whether the information is verifiable;

B) whether the information is relevant and of public interest

C) whether the release of the information will help to reduce the scope of actions of corrupt individuals, including the informant himself.

Once the three conditions above are met, the information deserves to be taken seriously, regardless, it bears repeating, of the moral standing of the informant.

A good journalist doesn't allow themselves to be paralyzed, establishing as a criterion only those sources who pass the highest ethical standard. This should in no way be confused with the idea that anything goes. VEJA's criterion is clear. The information must be qualified, regardless of the moral standing of the informant. People of questionable moral standing may possess information of the highest journalistic quality. Let's say the information concerns a bribery negotiation. Who is better positioned to recount what happened? Someone who was there or someone who wasn't? The answer is clear: someone who was there, that is, one of those involved.

Obviously, the above criterion does not apply to sources who wish to offer opinions. We do not give space to people of low moral standing to give opinions. In the process of collecting opinions, we seek out the most qualified world authorities to interview, wherever they may be. If a morally questionable source witnessed an important event, wants to recount what they witnessed, and if what they narrate is verifiable by other means, we consider that they may have information worth taking into account. If that same source wants to give an opinion about those same events, we do not accept it. The quality of the information may be independent of the quality of the source. However, an opinion is inseparable from the person who expresses it. The quality of the person giving the opinion affects the quality of the opinion.

"A journalist's ethics cannot vary according to the ethics of the source providing information. Interviewing the Pope doesn't make us saints. Having a corrupt person as an informant doesn't corrupt us."

This point deserves closer analysis. How should a journalist differentiate their relationship when one source is, say, a respected economist, and another source is a criminal? The journalist must keep in mind that both can possess information of the highest quality. The criminal may have witnessed a crime, and their testimony could help dismantle a dangerous gang. What they have to say cannot be disregarded. It is necessary to listen, analyze, weigh, check, and contextualize. A respected economist, to caricature, may be theoretically mistaken about some phenomenon or may be serving some special economic or commercial interest. In short, both are valuable for the content, quality, and degree of interest of the true information they possess. It is important to note that, even if the source is a murderer awaiting execution (a true example transformed into the book "The Journalist and the Murderer" by the American Janet Malcolm), they deserve to be treated with respect. If the source lacks ethics, that is their problem. A journalist's ethics cannot vary according to the ethics of the source providing information. Interviewing the Pope doesn't make us saints. Having a corrupt person as an informant doesn't corrupt us.

When a journalist deals with a source who has true, verifiable, and relevant information, they need to be aware of the informant's particular interests. Test whether the greater public interest truly outweighs the undesirable byproduct of satisfying the source's lesser, subordinate interests. If the result is positive, the information is a candidate for publication. Therefore, a journalist cannot befriend sources. They cannot accept gifts, invitations to trips, or any other favors.

Veja magazine has never published content from illegally obtained recordings; therefore, what follows here aims only to reflect on certain limits. Anyone who knowingly benefits from the proceeds of theft, robbery, or other crimes is potentially an accomplice to the perpetrator. For this reason, a journalist who receives an illegally obtained recording and uses it in a report may be exposing themselves to the rigors of the law. Therefore, they should only take this risky step when the cost to society of disregarding the content of the recording is very high. If the personal price of preventing a crime or a series of crimes by publicizing illegal recordings is a minor transgression, the journalist has a duty to consider taking that risk. At Veja, such cases are never decided individually by a journalist, but by the magazine's management. Journalistic work involves various risks. Like any job. The surgeon's, the lawyer's, the engineer's. If he takes all precautions, the risks will be minimized, but never eliminated. VEJA's first concern when accessing information is to understand how the information was obtained. If the publication of the product of a crime is relevant to preventing worse crimes – and even if it helps sell magazines – there is no ethical breach. If a journalist steals, for example, a plan to blow up the Itaipu dam from someone's briefcase, and if, by publishing the plan, he prevents the terrorist attack – and even sells more magazines – the ethical implication will be highly favorable to him.

“Good journalism is a mediated information activity. The journalist is not merely a transmitter of statements. He has the discretionary power not to publish an accusation or a serious offense.”

Information obtained with the guarantee of maintaining source confidentiality presents additional challenges for journalists. Information obtained from anonymous sources, who cannot or do not want to identify themselves, should preferably be used to confirm data or accounts already obtained from other sources. But it is a mistake to disregard them. Often, an informant has witnessed relevant events, and the only condition they set for narrating them is the maintenance of secrecy regarding their identity. The basic rule for making fewer mistakes when using anonymous sources is to keep in mind that the reader will know little or nothing about who provided the information – therefore, the journalist must know everything about the source. Veja often has no way of confirming information passed on by a source who requested off-the-record information with other sources. Let's say a discussion between two people is recounted off the record by one of the participants. Will Veja not publish it if the other person does not confirm it? Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on the content of the dialogue. The lesson is that good journalism is an activity of mediated information. A journalist is not merely a transmitter of statements. They have the discretionary power not to publish a serious accusation or offense. If the cost of not publishing is detrimental to the public interest, the journalist must weigh the risks and take them if necessary.

A tape containing important revelations (after being properly examined and contextualized) has extraordinarily greater value than an accusatory statement, whether off-camera or on-camera. VEJA always examines the recorded dialogues it publishes and keeps these records. VEJA has published dialogues that were delivered to it already transcribed without having had access to the original content – ​​but it did so with absolute certainty about the origin of the material. There is a big difference between an off-camera accusation and a tape. The tape often involves a dialogue between two people accusing a third – who may be innocent. And that person ends up being involved in a scandal involuntarily. This rarely happens in an accusation, even off-camera. Therefore, extreme caution is necessary with this type of information.

A document (after being examined and contextualized) has exponentially greater value than oral information, provided that the content of both is equivalent in relevance. But sometimes a document lies, and the spoken information has more value. Example: as a way to show his distance from a corruption allegation, the minister sends a memo demanding information from his advisor about the irregularity. This document can be presented by the authority as proof of his innocence. A more in-depth investigation may prove that the document was nothing more than a fabrication. In other words, each case is unique.

"The rule for dealing with illegal recordings that have documented the activities of citizens or private companies in their private business dealings is: discard them without listening or watching – or, alternatively, hand them over to the authorities."

The tape (after being examined and contextualized) is very valuable. The examination helps to show whether the tape arrived at the newsroom in a condition suitable for use as evidence. In some cases, the recordings are inaudible or undecipherable – or the tape may have been altered with the purpose of changing the meaning of the speech. In these cases, it goes to the trash.

It is crucial to emphasize a point of utmost importance. What is being discussed here is the publication of information concerning the actions of authorities and their relationships with third parties when dealing with matters involving money or other public assets. The rule for dealing with illegal recordings that have captured the activities of citizens or private companies in their private business dealings is: discard them without listening or watching – or, alternatively, hand them over to the authorities.

"In VEJA, information is treated as a gateway to new information. All of it is fact-checked."

No report in VEJA – with the obvious exception of interviews in the Yellow Pages – is based on only a single source of information. Information is treated at VEJA as a gateway to new information. All information is checked, contextualized, and compared, so that any errors that may occur are those that managed to escape our rigorous filtering mechanisms – and never the result of bad faith.

Sao Paulo, April 20, 2012