Report in front of the mirror: due process for all

A: Let’s start with the simplest point. Sigfrido Ranucci was the victim of an assassination attempt. Valter Lavitola is under investigation – not convicted – as the alleged instigator. The fact that the two had a close relationship, described by Ranucci as a true friendship, does not turn the journalist into a defendant, does not prove that "Report" was influenced, and does not authorise Rai to suspend a programme. It is for the magistrates to clarify the details of the attack, and for the editorial team to clarify the editorial line. Confusing the two issues means using against Ranucci the very same tactics for which he is being criticised: friendship, suspicion, insinuation, condemnation.

B: That is precisely the point. Ranucci must not be condemned for a friendship. But now he can understand what happens when a dinner becomes a plot, a phone call a collusion, and an association a moral X-ray of the person who cultivates it. Il Foglio has for years criticised the "Report" method because it often creates a grey area where facts end and insinuations begin. Applying that method to Ranucci, his friendship with Lavitola would be enough for an entire episode. It would be unfair. Exactly.

A: Investigative journalism, however, is not a catechism on good manners. Investigators deal with opaque sources and cultivate relationships that may appear inappropriate from the outside. The yardstick cannot be the telephone directory, but the final product: were the reports true, well-sourced and in the public interest? Ranucci said that no investigation had ever been influenced by Lavitola. Until evidence to the contrary emerges, this should suffice.

B: That’s not enough, because the problem isn’t just potential direct influence. It’s about transparency. For years, Ranucci has been reporting on other people’s private lives as if they were inevitably political. Now he cannot simply say: ‘Trust me.’ He must explain what Lavitola provided him with, whether that relationship overlapped with the work of "Report", and what precautions were taken. Not because he is guilty, but because those who demand transparency from others cannot claim the right to remain in the shadows themselves.

A: Transparency, yes; a summary trial, no. The rebuttals do not concern the Lavitola case and cannot interfere with the public prosecutor’s office. Stopping them would mean punishing an entire editorial team for a presenter’s personal report for which there is no evidence of editorial interference.

B: The suspension is wrong, but it is instructive. It is the ‘Report’ method applied to ‘Report’ itself: caution that becomes a sanction, doubt that becomes a verdict, context that becomes blame. Rai is wrong to suspend the programme, but that mistake does not exonerate ‘Report’.

A: Be careful, however, not to criminalise the scoop. Without the courage to seek out documents and engage with difficult sources, investigative journalism would not exist. In the case of the private audio recording between Gennaro Sangiuliano and his wife, the Court of Rome recognised the legitimacy and public interest of its publication.

B: Nobody wants bland journalism. The problem is confusing a scoop with sensationalism. A scoop uncovers a new fact and substantiates it. Sensationalism seeks to create a stir and builds a chain of insinuations around it. A story awaiting verification is a lead. And a lead should not become a televised accusation.

A: Mistakes must be acknowledged, but one cannot use a single error to undermine thirty years of work. Report has produced important investigations, uncovered documents and forced institutions and companies to respond. The remedy lies in cross-examination, corrections and professional accountability, not in appeasement.

B: Those who defend every excess risk turning the journalist into a judge without a code of conduct and the editing process into a verdict without appeal. A democracy needs aggressive journalists, but it also needs a culture of scepticism.

A: On today’s case, the conclusion should be clear to all. No special leniency for Ranucci, but no special punishment either. He should clarify his relationship with Lavitola, answer the questions and ensure transparency regarding any links to the work of Report. And Rai should put the repeats back on air.

B: Agreed, with one addition. Ranucci deserves the due process that Report has not always granted to others. The Lavitola case does not prove that Report is corrupt or dishonest. It proves that a friendship is not evidence, a dinner is not a crime, and a coincidence is not a conspiracy. It would be a step forward if Report were to apply this realisation to its targets as well.

A: And it would be a step forward if his opponents realised that criticising the method does not mean exploiting a murky affair to shut down the programme.

B: The ‘Report’ light must remain on. But with a light that is a little less dramatic and a little more precise.