The readers' editor on... how a tribal people's charity was misrepresented (original) (raw)
The pictures were stunning: brightly painted warriors aiming bows and arrows up at an aircraft as it flew over their hidden forest home on the Brazilian-Peruvian border. Here was proof that these people were not the mythological figures the logging industry would have us believe. They existed, and their way of life would be swept away amid the angry roar of chainsaws.
The story, first brought to light by the tribal people's charity Survival International, ran right around the world earlier this summer, but some of the coverage was misleading, describing the tribesmen as 'undiscovered' or 'lost' when in fact they were known about but left alone: 'uncontacted', to use the jargon. The Observer chose to try to explain how misleading some of the coverage had been, but the editing process managed instead to heap further doubt on the veracity of a perfectly valid story, with serious consequences for the charity.
The damage began with the misleading headline 'Secret of the "lost" tribe that wasn't' and continued in the standfirst, or introduction: 'Tribal guardian admits the Amazon Indians' existence was already known.'
That 'tribal guardian', José Carlos Meirelles, had given an interview to the TV station al-Jazeera in which he explained how he had found the tribe, mapped their whereabouts and planned a protection zone before flying over the area to photograph them. The paper repeated his remarks, but couched them in terms of a confession, suggesting that what had been a statement had actually been an admission that something had previously been concealed. Mereilles made 'disclosures' about why he took the pictures and 'admitted' that the tribe was first known about a century ago. The 'apparent chance encounter' that produced the now famous images 'was no accident'.
Survival International had never suggested that the photographs, supplied to them by Funai, the Brazilian Indian Protection Agency, were the product of a random encounter, nor had they said the tribe was unknown, merely that it was 'uncontacted', yet The Observer said they 'conceded' that Funai had known about the nomadic tribe for two decades.
The piece attempted to suggest that other media had 'told and sold' the story incorrectly, but a reader could reasonably infer that it was Survival International that had 'told and sold' a misleading story. All this, carried under a headline which said The Observer was revealing a secret, sparked a further round of worldwide publicity, but this time proclaiming the story had been 'a hoax', 'a fraud' a 'PR joke' or that the photographs were 'fakes'.
As soon as it became apparent that other media thought the tribe story was false, The Observer's reporter offered to collaborate on the wording of a blog post which might clarify the situation. Survival International rejected this, feeling that it would not be given 'due prominence' as readers of the paper would not see it.
While The Observer cannot be responsible for content of other media it does have a duty under the Editors' Code not to publish 'inaccurate, misleading or distorted information'. It failed in that duty here.