Apocalyptic Chaos in the Skies: The Folha de S. Paulo Runs Nonexistent Facts

IFATC’s internal report last October led to a special issue of its magazine in March. One finding: “Military hierarchy and internal peculiarities in the relationship between the CINDACTAs and the Air Force chain of command did not allow problems to be identified or improvements to be undertaken.”

Brazil’s Observatório da Imprensa contributes an international item for Regret the Error — a fine little Web log that analyzes the erramus columns of the newspapers and wire services of the Anglosphere.

I translated the story in question here for you as Brazilian Air Traffic Control: Buck Still Circling the Field.

This note is by OI founder Alberto Dines, an elder statesman of Brazilian journalism who has lectured at the Columbia University J-school.

From his Wikipedia profile — initiated by Whooligan, who has also authored entries on Johnny Cash, Pete Townshend and, er, Baron Munchausen:

Depois de anos driblando a ditadura à frente do Jornal do Brasil, foi demitido em junho de 2004 justamente por publicar um artigo que contrariava a direção do jornal, ao criticar a relação amistosa de seus donos com o governo do estado do Rio de Janeiro.

After dodging the dictatorship at the head of the Jornal do Brasil, he was fired in June 2004 precisely for publishing an article that reflected badly on the newspaper’s management, criticizing the friendly relations between its owners and the state government of Rio de Janeiro.

That would be the government of Mrs. Garotinho, who succeeded her husband, named him to her cabinet, and has, ahem, many enthusiastic detractors.

The note:

Na segunda-feira passada (9/4) comentamos aqui a manchete de primeira página da Folha de S.Paulo do dia anterior (domingo, 8/4). Apesar de escondida pela oferta de brindes, imaginava-se que a revelação teria enorme repercussão já que mencionava um veemente relatório da Confederação Internacional de Controladores de Vôo sobre as causas da tragédia do dia 29 de setembro de 2006, e que teria sido entregue à presidência da República.

Last Monday (April 9) we commented on the front-page headline in the Folha de S. Paulo from the previous day. Although it was half-hidden by a promotional offer, we imagined the revelation would have enormous repercussions, given that it reported that the International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers had issued a vehement report on the Gol crash of September 29, 2006, and that this report had been sent to the president’s office.

A revelação da Folha não alvoroçou a concorrência. Só incomodou – e com razão – o governo, que avisou à Folha não ter recebido o tal relatório.

But the Folha’s scoop did not fire up the competition. It only managed to upset — and rightly so — the government, which informed the Folha it had not received said report.

No sábado (14/4), a Folha retratou-se, acionada havia vários dias pelo novo ombudsman: reconheceu que o relatório da entidade internacional não fora entregue à presidência.

On Saturday, April 14, the Folha printed a retraction, having been urged to do so for several days by the new ombudsman. It acknowledge that the report from the international organization had not been delivered to the president’s office.

I had quite a bit of regard for the old Folha ombudsman, Mr. Beraba, by the way, although the man, diligent as he was, seemed to have been unable to confront some of the paper’s most jaw-dropping malpractices.

Who is this new public editor, Mário Magalhães?

Tudo bem, reconhecer erros só engrandece um jornal. Mas por que razão o governo não desmentiu a manchete publicamente? E como é que fica a outra parte da notícia – as conclusões do relatório? Não mereceriam resposta do governo? E o resto da mídia que não se sensibilizou na semana passada e continua insensível até hoje?

All very well and good. Acknowledging mistakes reflects well on a newspaper. But why did the government not refute the headline publicly? And what about the other part of the report: Its conclusions? Does that not merit a response from the government? And the rest of the media, which did not bite on the story last week, and have nothing to say about it this week?

A fair question. I have no firm idea, but the delicacy of negotiations over demilitarization of the civilian air travel sector is certainly in play. As I wrote before:

Ms. Suwwan of the Brasília bureau of the Folha de S. Paulo writes that Brazilian president Lula received a report from the International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers (IFATC) on the crisis in air traffic control in November — and did nothing! See also Reuters: “Lula Is Soft on Crime”.

My reading at the time:

The buck has not yet been cleared to land, and the pyjama generals are worried it will land on their field on their watch, the way it has in Argentina (Argentina: Military Removed From Civilian Air Traffic Control). See Generals Smell a Trap!

IFATC’s findings on the effect of military hierarchy on good technical governance were left as a footnote by Ms. Suwwan of the Brasília Bureau — not the most reliable bunch, I find:

“Military hierarchy and internal peculiarities in the relationship between the CINDACTAS and the Air Force chain of command did not allow problems to be identified or improvements to be undertaken.”

That, I think, is the crux of the matter: CINDACTA is a black box, and national security gets invoked to prevent light from getting shed. The defense ministry’s proposed first step for resolving this issue, presented at a recent committee hearing in Congress (Source: Estado de S. Paulo):

Fazer auditoria técnica independente, com participação de peritos estrangeiros, sobre os equipamentos, infra-estrutura e pessoal de controle do tráfego aéreo;

Conduct an independent technical audit, with participation by foreign experts, of the equipment, infrastructure and traffic control personnel.

The sergeants, in fact — see Brazil: The Magisterium and the “Mutineers” — have portrayed themselves as whistleblowers in the case.

Brazil is an anomaly in the world, I understand: No other civilian air traffic system of comparable scale is controlled by the military.

In the headlines today, in fact: The Federal Police will investigate Infraero over contracting irregularities. More on that later.

A trágica colisão aérea do Boeing com o Legacy deixou um saldo de 154 mortes, inúmeros apagões nos aeroportos do país e algo ainda mais perigoso: uma enorme carga de apatia.

The tragic mid-air collision of a Gol Boeing with a Legacy private jet left a toll of 154 people dead, innumerable “blackouts” in Brazilian airports, and something even more dangerous: an enormous burden of apathy.

This is a tiny bit hysterical, if I may say so.

I am still waiting for a Brazilian investigative journalist to study the comparative statistics on flight delays, which are still unavailable from the Web site of the fledgling civil aviation body, ANAC.

In December 2006, nearly 30% of U.S. flights were “not on time,” according to our federal statistics — statistics up the wazoo, really: what is the ratio of flying squirrel-related delays to moose-related ones on north-south runways? — for example.

Nearly half of those delays were weather-related. And Brazil has some pretty heavy weather, too.

I have seen not one single objective treatment of the issue from this angle.

Come on people: this is a great project for a talented intern to cut their teeth on.

“Hurry up and solve the problem” is a fair enough demand to make of an elected official, although implying that nothing is being done, or planned, when that is not the case, is pretty low.

Reporting, as fact, events that never actually occurred remains a sensitive issue for the Folha de S. Paulo., which has a very talented staff but also, apparently, a nucleus of pseudojournalistic information vandals who piggyback on that reputation. See

• Puta Sacanagem: Sampa Journalists Huddle with Capt. Edmilson of the Federal Police
• The Folha de S. Paulo In Flagrante Delicto

I hope the Folha’s new public editor will take an active role in reversing the unfortunate impression that incident made on (ex-)readers like me.