To me, the idea of an editorial seems to be an abandonment of the classical doctrine of impartiality, as espoused by most other European public broadcasters. Buteven if you accept the idea of such editorials, you might think that there are better or worse editorials, editorials which walk the line between partisanship and analysis, and those which step far past it.

Yesterday’s editorial by the director of TG1, Augusto Minzolini, falls into the latter category. The video is below; my (very quick) transcription and translation follow.

Dico senza spirito polemico, ma la manifestazione di oggi per la libertà di stampa per me è incomprensibile. Manifestare è sempre leggitima e salutare per la democrazia, ma in un paese dove negli utlimi tre mesi sono finiti nella tritacarne mediatico Berlusconi, la figure dell’avvocato Agnelli, l’ingegnere De Benedetti, l’ex-direttore dell’Avvenire, tane ti altri, denunciare che la libertà di stampa è in pericolo è un assurdo.

Il rischio è un altro, l’informazione è diventato il teatro di un scontro di potere. la manifestaizone di oggi e un episodio di questo scontro, perche fotografa una disparità: è stata convocata contro la decisione del premier di querelare Repubblica e l’Unità. Si contestano due sole querele e non quelle che colpiscono altri giornali, magari di diverso orientament. Negli ultimi dieci anni ci sono stati in media quattro cento trenta querele di politici contro giornali, il sessantotto percento presentati da esponenti di centrosinistra.

Mi chiedo: è possibile che la libertà di stampa sia stata messa in pericolo solo dalle querele di Berlusconi?

Vediamo che succede all’estero. Nel 2004 Tony Blair, dopo un lungo braccio di ferro che arrivò quasi in tribunale, constrinse la dimisione dei vertici della BBC, che lo accusava di falsificiare il dossier sull aguera in iraq.

Non si puo pensare che i giornali abbiano sempre ragione. La difesa corporativa non fa bene all’autorevolezza della media, specie in Italia, dove si ha una strana concezione del pluralismo dell’informazione: ci sono giornali che si considerano depositari della verità, che giudicano gli altri che la pensano in modo diverso come nemici o servi. Chi ha questa concezione manifesta contro un ipotetico regime politico, per insediare un inaccettabile regime mediatico.

I say this without wishing to start an argument, but today’s demonstration in favour of freedom of the press seems, to me, absurd. It’s always legitimate and healthy for democracy to have demonstrations of this sort, but in a country where, in the last few months, figures such as Berlusconi, l’avvocato Agnelli, de Benedetti, the former editor of Avvenire, have finished in the media meat-grinder — to maintain that the freedom of the press is in danger is absurd.

The risk is quite different. Information has become the scene of a struggle for power. Today’s demonstration is an episode in that scene, because it offers a snapshot of a disparity. The demonstration was called in protest at the decision of the prime minister to bring a case against Repubblica and Unità. Those two cases and only those cases are being protested against, and not those cases which hurt other newspapers, perhaps newspapers with a different viewpoint. In the last ten years, there have been on average four hundred and thirty defamation cases brought by politicians against newspapers, 68% of which have been brought by politicians of the centre-left.

I ask myself: is it possible that freedom of the press has been put in danger purely through the libel actions of Berlusconi?

Let’s see what happens abroad. In 2004, after a long struggle which almost ended up in court, Tony Blair forced the management of the BBC, which accused him of falsifying claims in the dossier on war in Iraq, to resign.

We can’t think that newspapers are always right. A corporatist defence like this doesn’t help the reliability of the media, especially in Italy, where we have a strange idea of media pluralism. There are newspapers who consider themselves notaries of the truth, and consider those who view things differently as enemies or servants of power. Those who have this view are battling against a hypothetical political regime only to install an unacceptable media regime.

There are a number of things which are problematic with this editorial.

First, it’s inaccurate. The Blair-BBC row did end up in court (a quasi-judicial court, granted, but a court nonetheless). Blair didn’t fire the BBC management; theyresigned after Lord Hutton had found their information to be incorrect. Difficult to imagine a Rai board resigning for similar reasons.

Second, it has faulty logic. One of the arguments is that if yesterday’s protesters  didn’t protest against otherlibel cases, they can’t protest against this one. That argument obviously depends on some kind of minor premise like “in order to protest any action of type X, one must protest against all actions of type X” (or at least those of equal gravity, and, by the way, Berlusconi’s actions are no worse than the rest). That minor premise is clearly bullshit.

Third, it’s misleading. Why bring in the fact that most libel cases have been brought by centre-left politicians unless you’re willing to come right out and say that this is a disguised left-right clash — something that Minzolini only ever insinuates (giornali magari di orientamento diverso)? Why even mention the number of libel claims, since that only makes it more credible to maintain that the freedom of press is in danger, something you contest?

I think it’s entirely reasonable to suggest that libel actions brought by the sitting prime minister (and Italy’s richest man) against the two newspapers which have been the most hostile to him are libel actions of quite different nature to libel actions brought say, by the chair of a parliamentary commission.

It’s been hard for me teaching people about Italian media, because it’s very hard to show TG1 not showing news about Berlusconi’s relationships with escorts. But this editorial certainly demonstrates an overlap of viewpoints between the governing coalition and TG1.

• Giovanna Bianchi Clerici (Lega Nord)
• Rodolfo De Laurentiis (UDC)
• Alessio Gorla (FI)
• Antonino Rizzo Nervo (PD)
• Guglielmo Rositani (AN)
• Giorgio Van Straten (PD)
• Antonio Verro (FI)

Bianchi Clerici, Rositani, De Laurentiis and Verro are ex-parliamentarians, so their “labelling” is relatively uncontroversial.

Alessio Gorla is a former Mediaset man, and so is automatically considered to be close to Forza Italia. Nino Rizzo Nervo is considered close to the Margherita in virtue of his having been editor of their newspaper, Europa, but he was considered to be close to them even before he took that job.

Finally, Giorgio Van Straten is considered to be close to the PD in virtue of having been nominated by Walter Veltroni to head Palaexpo.

Of course,  the least political nomination –Van Straten’s — is also the one that has caused most discontent: first, because Van Straten is considered not just close to the PD, but close to Veltroni, and Veltroni has, as we’ve seen, numerous enemies within the party; and second, because in order to make place for Van Straten, Carlo Rognoni — ex PD parliamentarian — had to go, and presumably the party feels its interests would be better served by “one of their own” than a novelist.

I’m not opposed to supervision of public service broadcasters, but the level of supervision must be closely watched. The Italian parliamentary commission – the Vigilanza — is entirely too involved in Rai’s inner workings. Abolishing it would undoubtedly aid the broadcaster’s independence. Additionally, nomination of the board by the presidents of the two chambers — used between 1993 and 2004 — will also be likely to result in less partisan nominees, as I show here [PDF excerpt from thesis].

One explanation might be that many parties within the broad left-wing coalitions, and many individuals within Italian politics more generally, are inclined to forgive past crimes in order to make life easier or to avoid division.

This is one of two arguments adduced by Paul Ginsborg, in his 2004 book, Silvio Berlusconi : television, power and patrimony:

Most of those who were in the centre of the centre-left came from a Christian Democrat past. They were opposed to taking any determined measures, either of a judicial nature, or regarding Berlusconi’s predominant position in the media (the two issues had become almost inextricably intertwined by this time). For them a policy of laissez-faire and letting bygones be bygones was the wisest one to adopt. Behind such attitudes lay a deep-rooted tendency in Italian political culture, clearly of Catholic origin, towards pardoning and forgetting (p. 91)

And indeed, there have been numerous `amnesties’ in recent Italian political history, and not all on sexy issues like the media: there have been amnesties on immigration, on the building of residences without permits, on tax payments, and so on, most of which have been granted by the centre-right.

In any case, if this argument is correct, then the left hasn’t done more about Berlusconi’s influence on the media because the `centre’ of the `centre-left’ didn’t really want it, and they didn’t really want it because they’re inclined to let sleeping dogs lie.

At the same time, this argument runs against a very different school of thought: that it was not the former Christian Democrats who let Berlusconi off the hook, but rather the former Communists.

In particular – runs the argument – Massimo D’Alema was so keen to play the statesman and agree institutional reform with Berlusconi during the Bicamerale that he let Berlusconi off the hook. Call this the inciucio theory. It seems to me that the inciucio theory and the forgiveness theory can’t both be right.

“The… consequence of appointing news editors because they represent the right faction rather than the right qualifications is simply that the quality of much of the broadcasting on Rai is sloppy and substandard. News footage tends to look as shaky and out of focus as a holiday video. the reports are thin on facts but dense on comment, and despite its generous state subsidies and licence fees Rai has produced little television drama or documentary material of any lasting value” (p. 62)

ADNKronos has learned that the PdL is preparing to deposit in the Senate draft legislation to reduce the licence fee for Rai. “Objectively”, said Senator Alessio Butti, member of the parliamentary watchdog commission, “the licence fee is extremely high. But it’s a tax, and as such should be paid. More than abolition, therefore, it’s possible to imagine a reduction, first of all for the less well-off, and, subsequently, more generally”.Il Pdl, a quanto apprende l’ADNKRONOS, si appresta a depositare in Parlamento, al Senato, un disegno di legge per la riduzione del canone di abbonamento Rai. “Oggettivamente -dice il senatore Alessio Butti, componente della commissione di Vigilanza- il canone e’ molto elevato. Ma e’ un’imposta e come tale va pagata. Piu’ che l’abolizione, quindi, e’ possibile immaginare una riduzione, prima per le fasce piu’ deboli e poi, in un secondo momento, generalizzata”.

“Objectively”, the Rai licence fee is not extremely high.

(Or see Rai’s own graphic).

“Epoca carried out a survey on lottizzazione in Rai, asking 79 parliamentariansof various parties whether they would look favourably on an overhaul of the party-based division of the three networks and three news bulletins. The noes won: 48 of 100 parliamentarians preferred that things remained as they are, whilst only 31% were in favour of the change”

“Sulla lottizzazione alla Rai, Epoca ha svolto un sondaggio, chiedendo a 79 parlamentari di vari partiti se sarebbero favorevoli al superamento della divisione partitica delle tre reti e dei tre tg. Hanno vinto i no: 48 parlamentari su 100 preferiscono che le cose rimangano come sono, mentre solo il 31% si è detto favorevole al cambiamento.”

“the division of the telegiornali. Perhaps in the past it corresponded to a need for pluralism. But what sense does it have today? And how much does it cost? I’m not talking about abolishing Tg1, Tg2 and Tg3. But there are thirteen different bulletins which go on air more or less at the same time, and with the same news items. Why not differentiate them? Why not aim for greater specialization? By creating unitsdedicated to sport, or investigations, or local news, Rai would be acting like a real news group.

“la divisione dei Tg. Forse ha corrisposto, in passato, ad un bisogno di pluralismo. Ma oggi che senso ha? E quanto costa? Non dico di abolire il Tg1, il Tg2 e il Tg3. Ma di fatto ci sono tredici edizioni di telegiornali che vanno in onda più o meno tutte alla stessa ora, e tutte con lo stesso pacchetto di notizie. Perchè non differenziarli? Perchè non puntare alla specializzazione? Creare cioè settori dedicati allo sport, o alle inchieste, all’ informazione locale. Così si comporterebbe come un vero gruppo editoriale.” (IL PCI MINACCIA DI ABBANDONARE LA COMMISSIONE DI VIGILANZA RAI, Repubblica — 15 agosto 1985, p. 2)

This same suggestion – a single news team – has recently been suggested by Veltroni’s party colleague, Claudio Petruccioli. If the division of the TG did not correspond to a need for pluralism in 1985, how much less must it be worth now?

Gioacchino Alfano, justice minister, has now promised to listen to the opposition’s concerns about Retequattro. Quite what this means is unclear.

Repubblica today also provides the latest scuttlebutt on the nominations race for Rai. Touted as potential centre-right nominees are Mauro Mazza (area AN), Marcello Veneziani (area AN),Giovanna Bianchi Clerici (LN), Alessio Gorla (close to Berlusconi). No news about centre-left nominees apart from the candidates for president of the board, which now, by tradition (and not, as Repubblica reports, by any provision of the law), falls to the opposition to nominate; and the opposition seems not to want Claudio Petruccioli to continue.

In the race for the post of director-general – which, as we all know, is nominated by the board, which acts entirely independently of any suggestions put to it (!) – Cappon seems to be out of the running, with Stefano Parisi touted as a potential external candidate. It’s Cappon’s great misfortune to have come into Rai at difficult times for the organisation, in both cases shortly before general elections and the return of Berlusconi to power. I really wish that he would be given more time in the job – or indeed, that any director-general of Rai could last in the post for more than two to three years.

I find it hard to believe that there’s been a violation offundamental rights, at least in the sense of article 4 (which covers all the usual inducement to hate on the basis of certain categories).

It’s not difficult to find some grounds for opening a case on the basis of the service contract, which commits the broadcaster to truthfulness, objectivity, impartiality, and a whole load of other hurrah-words. But if Agcom feels it is entitled to intervene on the basis of these commitments, then it is, in effect, granting itself the right to open a case against any Rai program whatsoever, provided a majority of commissioners can be found.