Questões de Inglês

Brazil’s huge river diversion project divides opinion

By Henry Mance

  Outside his house by the São Francisco river, Emanoel de Souza toys with the skin of a crocodile he hunted a month earlier. “There are plenty out there. You leave a cow’s heart on a hook by the river, and by morning a crocodile will have bitten,” he smiles. The meat makes for a good meal and the skin provides an amusing decoration.

  But Mr. de Souza gets much more than crocodiles from the São Francisco. The river also provides water for him to farm fish and rice. The profits of the last harvest alone paid for a new motorbike. This makes him one of the lucky ones. Just a few kilometres away, out of reach of the São Francisco’s water, Raquel Torres has lost a crop of beans and maize due to lack of rain. “This is the second consecutive year. There is no irrigation here,” she says. The water she uses for drinking, cooking and washing arrives every few weeks by lorry. Like many residents of Brazil’s dry north-east, she knows that water can be the scarcest commodity.

  The national government’s solution is to divert part of the São Francisco – the only major river that starts and finishes in Brazil – through the sertão, the semi-arid backlands. Two large canals, one of 400km and another of 220 km, will deliver water to cities and to agriculture. The basic idea is not new – it has been mooted for centuries and seriously mulled over for decades – but its implementation is. Works began in 2009 and are scheduled for completion in 2025. Then, the government claims, the project will benefit more than 12 million “people who are thirsty”.

  And the north-east feels thirsty. Looking over the potentially fertile soils of the sertão under the intense sun, locals are prone to echo a single sentiment: all that is lacking is water. They point to the example of Petrolina, a nearby city that, thanks to irrigation, has become one of Brazil’s leading producers of fruit for export. Indeed, it is the only place in the world where grapes can be harvested twice a year.

  Not everyone is so optimistic. Environmentalists say the São Francisco is already overused. The current project, they say, threatens the river’s capacity to generate the North East’s hydroelectricity, as well as the livelihoods of those who, like Emanoel de Souza, currently depend on it for agriculture. “The diversion won’t resolve the water supply problem of the most-at-need people in the sertão, because they are geographically so spread out,” argues João Suassuna, a long-time critic. “And the São Francisco River, because it has multiple uses, won’t be able to supply the volumes of water necessary to ensure the viability of the venture.” Instead, he points to a 2005 study, the Northeast Atlas, which concluded that reservoirs and rainfall could supply three times as many people as the diversion, for about half the cost.

   Both supporters and opponents of the diversion project agree that, when it comes to the north-east and water, technical arguments only explain so much. The diversion project is as much political as it is agronomical. For President Lula da Silva, it is his chance to show his commitment to his native north-east.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8575010.stm. Adaptado.)

Brazil’s huge river diversion project divides opinion

By Henry Mance

  Outside his house by the São Francisco river, Emanoel de Souza toys with the skin of a crocodile he hunted a month earlier. “There are plenty out there. You leave a cow’s heart on a hook by the river, and by morning a crocodile will have bitten,” he smiles. The meat makes for a good meal and the skin provides an amusing decoration.

  But Mr. de Souza gets much more than crocodiles from the São Francisco. The river also provides water for him to farm fish and rice. The profits of the last harvest alone paid for a new motorbike. This makes him one of the lucky ones. Just a few kilometres away, out of reach of the São Francisco’s water, Raquel Torres has lost a crop of beans and maize due to lack of rain. “This is the second consecutive year. There is no irrigation here,” she says. The water she uses for drinking, cooking and washing arrives every few weeks by lorry. Like many residents of Brazil’s dry north-east, she knows that water can be the scarcest commodity.

  The national government’s solution is to divert part of the São Francisco – the only major river that starts and finishes in Brazil – through the sertão, the semi-arid backlands. Two large canals, one of 400km and another of 220 km, will deliver water to cities and to agriculture. The basic idea is not new – it has been mooted for centuries and seriously mulled over for decades – but its implementation is. Works began in 2009 and are scheduled for completion in 2025. Then, the government claims, the project will benefit more than 12 million “people who are thirsty”.

  And the north-east feels thirsty. Looking over the potentially fertile soils of the sertão under the intense sun, locals are prone to echo a single sentiment: all that is lacking is water. They point to the example of Petrolina, a nearby city that, thanks to irrigation, has become one of Brazil’s leading producers of fruit for export. Indeed, it is the only place in the world where grapes can be harvested twice a year.

  Not everyone is so optimistic. Environmentalists say the São Francisco is already overused. The current project, they say, threatens the river’s capacity to generate the North East’s hydroelectricity, as well as the livelihoods of those who, like Emanoel de Souza, currently depend on it for agriculture. “The diversion won’t resolve the water supply problem of the most-at-need people in the sertão, because they are geographically so spread out,” argues João Suassuna, a long-time critic. “And the São Francisco River, because it has multiple uses, won’t be able to supply the volumes of water necessary to ensure the viability of the venture.” Instead, he points to a 2005 study, the Northeast Atlas, which concluded that reservoirs and rainfall could supply three times as many people as the diversion, for about half the cost.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8575010.stm. Adaptado.)

NEW YORK TIMES’ POLICY ON FACEBOOK AND

OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES

[1] From PoynterOnline, advice by The New York Times’

assistant managing editor who oversees journalist

standards on using Facebook. Here’s the idea: you’re

always representing your employer and what you say

[5] and do […] can shape perceptions in unpredictable and

potentially adverse ways.

Facebook and other social networking sites —

MySpace, LinkedIn, even Twitter — can be remarkably

useful reporting tools, as the Virginia Tech shooting in

[10] 2007 proved. As we’ve discovered from the experts on

our staff, Facebook pages often tell a lot about a person’s

work, interests, friends, and thoughts, and, as one page

leads or links to another, Facebook can help reporters

do triangulation on difficult-to-research subjects. What

[15] people write on Facebook sites is publicly available

information, like anything posted on any site that is not

encrypted.

But there are a few things to be careful about,

nonetheless.

[20] One of them is that outsiders can read your Facebook

page, and that personal blogs and “tweets” represent

you to the outside world just as much as an 800-word

article does. If you have or are getting a Facebook page,

leave blank the section that asks about your political

[25] views, in accordance with the Ethical Journalism

admonition to do nothing that might cast doubt on your

or The Times’s political impartiality in reporting the news.

Remember that although you might get useful leads by

joining a group on one of these sites, it will appear on

[30] your page, connoting that you “joined” it — potentially

complicated if it is a political group, or a controversial

group.

Be careful not to write anything on a blog or a

personal Web page that you could not write in The Times

[35] — don’t editorialize, for instance, if you work for the News

Department. Anything you post online can and might be

publicly disseminated, and can be twisted to be used

against you by those who wish you or The Times ill —

whether it’s text, photographs, or video. That includes

[40] things you recommend on TimesPeople or articles you

post to Facebook and Digg, content you share with

friends on MySpace, and articles you recommend

through TimesPeople. It can also include things posted

by outside parties to your Facebook page, so keep an

[45] eye on what appears there. Just remember that we are

always under scrutiny by magnifying glass and that the

possibilities of digital distortion are virtually unlimited,

so always ask yourself, could this be deliberately

misconstrued or misunderstood by somebody who wants

[50] to make me look bad?

Reporters can ask questions by e-mail using

addresses found on Facebook, of course, but the same

rules that apply to telephone contacts (or personal

contacts) apply. “The Times treats news sources just

[55] as fairly and openly as it treats readers,” Ethical

Journalism says. “We do not inquire pointlessly into

someone’s personal life.” Approaching minors by e-mail

or by telephone, or in person, to ask about their or their

parents’ private lives or friends is a particularly sensitive

[60] area. Depending on the circumstances, it may not be

advisable. In every case, reporters and editors should

first consult with the Standards Editor before going ahead

with such inquiries.

By Matt Armstrong PoynterOnline, May 4, 2009 Disponível em http://mountainrunner.us/2009/05/nyt_facebook_policy.html (with slight adaptations)

NEW YORK TIMES’ POLICY ON FACEBOOK AND

OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES

[1] From PoynterOnline, advice by The New York Times’

assistant managing editor who oversees journalist

standards on using Facebook. Here’s the idea: you’re

always representing your employer and what you say

[5] and do […] can shape perceptions in unpredictable and

potentially adverse ways.

Facebook and other social networking sites —

MySpace, LinkedIn, even Twitter — can be remarkably

useful reporting tools, as the Virginia Tech shooting in

[10] 2007 proved. As we’ve discovered from the experts on

our staff, Facebook pages often tell a lot about a person’s

work, interests, friends, and thoughts, and, as one page

leads or links to another, Facebook can help reporters

do triangulation on difficult-to-research subjects. What

[15] people write on Facebook sites is publicly available

information, like anything posted on any site that is not

encrypted.

But there are a few things to be careful about,

nonetheless.

[20] One of them is that outsiders can read your Facebook

page, and that personal blogs and “tweets” represent

you to the outside world just as much as an 800-word

article does. If you have or are getting a Facebook page,

leave blank the section that asks about your political

[25] views, in accordance with the Ethical Journalism

admonition to do nothing that might cast doubt on your

or The Times’s political impartiality in reporting the news.

Remember that although you might get useful leads by

joining a group on one of these sites, it will appear on

[30] your page, connoting that you “joined” it — potentially

complicated if it is a political group, or a controversial

group.

Be careful not to write anything on a blog or a

personal Web page that you could not write in The Times

[35] — don’t editorialize, for instance, if you work for the News

Department. Anything you post online can and might be

publicly disseminated, and can be twisted to be used

against you by those who wish you or The Times ill —

whether it’s text, photographs, or video. That includes

[40] things you recommend on TimesPeople or articles you

post to Facebook and Digg, content you share with

friends on MySpace, and articles you recommend

through TimesPeople. It can also include things posted

by outside parties to your Facebook page, so keep an

[45] eye on what appears there. Just remember that we are

always under scrutiny by magnifying glass and that the

possibilities of digital distortion are virtually unlimited,

so always ask yourself, could this be deliberately

misconstrued or misunderstood by somebody who wants

[50] to make me look bad?

Reporters can ask questions by e-mail using

addresses found on Facebook, of course, but the same

rules that apply to telephone contacts (or personal

contacts) apply. “The Times treats news sources just

[55] as fairly and openly as it treats readers,” Ethical

Journalism says. “We do not inquire pointlessly into

someone’s personal life.” Approaching minors by e-mail

or by telephone, or in person, to ask about their or their

parents’ private lives or friends is a particularly sensitive

[60] area. Depending on the circumstances, it may not be

advisable. In every case, reporters and editors should

first consult with the Standards Editor before going ahead

with such inquiries.

By Matt Armstrong PoynterOnline, May 4, 2009 Disponível em http://mountainrunner.us/2009/05/nyt_facebook_policy.html (with slight adaptations)

NEW YORK TIMES’ POLICY ON FACEBOOK AND

OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES

[1] From PoynterOnline, advice by The New York Times’

assistant managing editor who oversees journalist

standards on using Facebook. Here’s the idea: you’re

always representing your employer and what you say

[5] and do […] can shape perceptions in unpredictable and

potentially adverse ways.

Facebook and other social networking sites —

MySpace, LinkedIn, even Twitter — can be remarkably

useful reporting tools, as the Virginia Tech shooting in

[10] 2007 proved. As we’ve discovered from the experts on

our staff, Facebook pages often tell a lot about a person’s

work, interests, friends, and thoughts, and, as one page

leads or links to another, Facebook can help reporters

do triangulation on difficult-to-research subjects. What

[15] people write on Facebook sites is publicly available

information, like anything posted on any site that is not

encrypted.

But there are a few things to be careful about,

nonetheless.

[20] One of them is that outsiders can read your Facebook

page, and that personal blogs and “tweets” represent

you to the outside world just as much as an 800-word

article does. If you have or are getting a Facebook page,

leave blank the section that asks about your political

[25] views, in accordance with the Ethical Journalism

admonition to do nothing that might cast doubt on your

or The Times’s political impartiality in reporting the news.

Remember that although you might get useful leads by

joining a group on one of these sites, it will appear on

[30] your page, connoting that you “joined” it — potentially

complicated if it is a political group, or a controversial

group.

Be careful not to write anything on a blog or a

personal Web page that you could not write in The Times

[35] — don’t editorialize, for instance, if you work for the News

Department. Anything you post online can and might be

publicly disseminated, and can be twisted to be used

against you by those who wish you or The Times ill —

whether it’s text, photographs, or video. That includes

[40] things you recommend on TimesPeople or articles you

post to Facebook and Digg, content you share with

friends on MySpace, and articles you recommend

through TimesPeople. It can also include things posted

by outside parties to your Facebook page, so keep an

[45] eye on what appears there. Just remember that we are

always under scrutiny by magnifying glass and that the

possibilities of digital distortion are virtually unlimited,

so always ask yourself, could this be deliberately

misconstrued or misunderstood by somebody who wants

[50] to make me look bad?

Reporters can ask questions by e-mail using

addresses found on Facebook, of course, but the same

rules that apply to telephone contacts (or personal

contacts) apply. “The Times treats news sources just

[55] as fairly and openly as it treats readers,” Ethical

Journalism says. “We do not inquire pointlessly into

someone’s personal life.” Approaching minors by e-mail

or by telephone, or in person, to ask about their or their

parents’ private lives or friends is a particularly sensitive

[60] area. Depending on the circumstances, it may not be

advisable. In every case, reporters and editors should

first consult with the Standards Editor before going ahead

with such inquiries.

By Matt Armstrong PoynterOnline, May 4, 2009 Disponível em http://mountainrunner.us/2009/05/nyt_facebook_policy.html (with slight adaptations)

NEW YORK TIMES’ POLICY ON FACEBOOK AND

OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES

[1] From PoynterOnline, advice by The New York Times’

assistant managing editor who oversees journalist

standards on using Facebook. Here’s the idea: you’re

always representing your employer and what you say

[5] and do […] can shape perceptions in unpredictable and

potentially adverse ways.

Facebook and other social networking sites —

MySpace, LinkedIn, even Twitter — can be remarkably

useful reporting tools, as the Virginia Tech shooting in

[10] 2007 proved. As we’ve discovered from the experts on

our staff, Facebook pages often tell a lot about a person’s

work, interests, friends, and thoughts, and, as one page

leads or links to another, Facebook can help reporters

do triangulation on difficult-to-research subjects. What

[15] people write on Facebook sites is publicly available

information, like anything posted on any site that is not

encrypted.

But there are a few things to be careful about,

nonetheless.

[20] One of them is that outsiders can read your Facebook

page, and that personal blogs and “tweets” represent

you to the outside world just as much as an 800-word

article does. If you have or are getting a Facebook page,

leave blank the section that asks about your political

[25] views, in accordance with the Ethical Journalism

admonition to do nothing that might cast doubt on your

or The Times’s political impartiality in reporting the news.

Remember that although you might get useful leads by

joining a group on one of these sites, it will appear on

[30] your page, connoting that you “joined” it — potentially

complicated if it is a political group, or a controversial

group.

Be careful not to write anything on a blog or a

personal Web page that you could not write in The Times

[35] — don’t editorialize, for instance, if you work for the News

Department. Anything you post online can and might be

publicly disseminated, and can be twisted to be used

against you by those who wish you or The Times ill —

whether it’s text, photographs, or video. That includes

[40] things you recommend on TimesPeople or articles you

post to Facebook and Digg, content you share with

friends on MySpace, and articles you recommend

through TimesPeople. It can also include things posted

by outside parties to your Facebook page, so keep an

[45] eye on what appears there. Just remember that we are

always under scrutiny by magnifying glass and that the

possibilities of digital distortion are virtually unlimited,

so always ask yourself, could this be deliberately

misconstrued or misunderstood by somebody who wants

[50] to make me look bad?

Reporters can ask questions by e-mail using

addresses found on Facebook, of course, but the same

rules that apply to telephone contacts (or personal

contacts) apply. “The Times treats news sources just

[55] as fairly and openly as it treats readers,” Ethical

Journalism says. “We do not inquire pointlessly into

someone’s personal life.” Approaching minors by e-mail

or by telephone, or in person, to ask about their or their

parents’ private lives or friends is a particularly sensitive

[60] area. Depending on the circumstances, it may not be

advisable. In every case, reporters and editors should

first consult with the Standards Editor before going ahead

with such inquiries.

By Matt Armstrong PoynterOnline, May 4, 2009 Disponível em http://mountainrunner.us/2009/05/nyt_facebook_policy.html (with slight adaptations)