Ranucci: the Marquis of the Report

 To discuss the Ranucci-Report case and its rights and wrongs, we must first define which yardstick is used to measure them: whether the one Ranucci applies to others or, instead, the one he applies to himself. Yet this story, which has evolved from a legal matter into a journalistic and political one, is a prime example of the constant application of a double standard. Let us take, for instance, the issue of remuneration. On the one hand, the Report journalists; on the other, Daniele Piervincenzi, the journalist chosen by Rai as the new presenter of Report. When Il Tempo published the salaries of Report’s correspondents, Ranucci cried scandal.  

The actual figures published by Il Tempo were described by Ranucci and those concerned as “a smear campaign against journalists” involving “false figures”, because the 200,000–300,000 euros per year earned by Report’s senior correspondents are gross amounts, including both tax and expenses: as most of them are self-employed, the journalists have to pay for the production costs of their reports and, of course, their taxes. Fair enough.

This same standard, however, is not applied to Piervincenzi. Ranucci has in fact published a post in which he describes his designated successor, Piervincenzi, as ‘mediocre’, attaching an article from Il Domani entitled ‘Report: 47,000 euros to Piervincenzi from the CNEL’. Had he applied the same yardstick used to measure the salaries of Report correspondents, Ranucci would have had to state that the remuneration for a project with schools relates to a two-year period, and should therefore be divided by two; furthermore, that this is a gross sum before costs and taxes, and should therefore be divided by two again; finally, that Piervincenzi is a 50 per cent shareholder in the company chosen by the CNEL, and so it should be divided by two again. In the end, for Piervincenzi, this amounts to less than 6,000 euros a year over two years. But Ranucci changes his standards, and uses the very same approach he used to criticise Daniele Capezzone for: he does not defend his colleague against the “smear campaign”, but amplifies it.

Another example concerns the other journalist chosen by Rai to present Report, Giulia Presutti. Ranucci unleashes his social media machine against someone he considers a traitor. He shares an article from Il Domani discussing an alleged “fake report” that the journalist supposedly produced on Cutro whilst she was at Agorà, publishing a document from the Guardia di Finanza featuring an outdated logo, apparently inserted by a graphic designer. “It’s not exactly ideal for someone aspiring to be the face of Report,” comments Ranucci, “if I’d known, she wouldn’t have been brought back to Report.” That is a very high bar indeed by Report’s standards, considering the numerous and dangerous pieces of fake news disseminated over the years; one need only look at the anti-vaccine reports that sparked protests from the Italian Society of Virology, which described them as “a serious act of disinformation” (the term ‘fake news’ wasn’t in use back then).

Still on the subject of Presutti, Ranucci went on the offensive, fuelling the accusation that she had been a customer at Valter Lavitola’s infamous Cefalù bistro: “I never told her to go there for work reasons. I only found out later that she had also gone there on other occasions on her own for projects I was never made aware of,” said Sigfrido. Yet another double standard. As if the problem were simply going to eat oysters at the Cefalù without telling the boss. And not, rather, being the close friend of its owner Valter Lavitola (with a criminal record for extortion, criminal association, fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, corruption, etc.), from whom—to sort out your own problems—you ask to ‘borrow’ his right-hand man, Gomes (alias ‘O Nir’, with a criminal record for drug trafficking and as a debt collector for the Russo clan—in other words, a Camorra enforcer—subject to a deportation order from the country: However, the matter is moot as he is now a fugitive in Cameroon), respectively the instigator and perpetrator of the attack on you, for whom you also serve as a financial adviser on carbon credit deals in Africa. All of these actions preceded the bombing outside Ranucci’s home, after which, following the search of Lavitola’s premises, he held a lengthy late-night conversation with his friend-turned-assassin via an unmonitored app (accidentally intercepted by a hidden microphone in the car) during which he attempted to construct an alibi for him. Unsuccessfully. With far less material, Report could have produced programmes for an entire season.

The Minister of Defence, Guido Crosetto, has written a message of apparent solidarity with Ranucci which, in reality, is an indictment of the Report programme’s methods: “I am disgusted by the constant breaches of investigative secrecy and the publication of wiretaps and chat logs which, by law, should not be published. I consider this a violation of the Constitution and of democracy. At the same time, I defend the right not to be judged moralistically solely on the basis of the people one associates with. I am, and always will be, a staunch defender of due process”.

Ranucci congratulated Crosetto, either failing to understand or pretending not to: “I would like to thank a minister, towards whom we have not been kind, for his consistency and for distancing himself from the decision by Rai to discredit me.” The triumph of double standards: we can do as we please to others, but others must not do the same to us. In short, “I’m me and you lot aren’t a bloody thing”. So spoke the Marquis of Il Report.