In Italy, interceptions are known to be published for enemies, summed up for friends and omitted for colleagues. With special attention for desk neighbors, privileged sources and stable affections of the director (category in which all the members of the editorial team fall by function, with their relatives up to the twelfth grade, friends who are not so dear, lovers and alike).
Without this necessary informal sorting, there is no journalist, or almost, who spares the reader the meticulous transcription of any kind of insinuation, slander or simple gossip has been propagated on the phone, even on behalf of third parties who have nothing to do with nothing (neither with the investigation, nor with any of the interlocutors) and they find themselves thrown on the front page, complete with photos and caption, for the only fault of having been named. Not infrequently simply because one of the two intercepted reported what someone else had told him, who perhaps in turn had heard it said by no one knows who, and so on.
This consolidated common practice of the Italian press, this shared culture of the right to disgrace one’s neighbor, still leaves ample room for important distinctions, as is abundantly demonstrated by the way in which the various newspapers have told what emerged from the brogliacci of the investigation on Luca Palamara (ex president of the ANM, member of the CSM and head of the associated judiciary).
On the one hand, in fact, there are newspapers that have spent the whole of the Berlusconian twenty years indignant at the unworthy wiretapping market, who have been busy quoting for days, complete with name-surname-and-photo, of any reporter who spoke with Palamara even simply to ask him for an interview; on the other side there are the newspapers that have spent the whole of Berlusconi’s twenty years defending to the end the right-duty to regularly publish every private conversation which they unquestionably considered a “news” (complete with “Hello, who speaks?” , “Eh? What did you say? I don’t hear you …”) and now they put on page 147 anodyne reconstructions from which you don’t even understand what happened, nor with whom the outraged editorialist or the contrite interviewee of the page have it next.
(read on Linkiesta)