“Lavitola Live”, the new show by Ranucci, champion of due process

If television programme commissioners displayed a touch of audacity, a sense of provocation and a dash of irony – not to mention a bit of self-deprecating humour – they would have launched a daily themed slot days ago, dedicated to the great lessons in due process, respect for the rule of law and the relentless fight against the culture of public shaming offered by the Ranucci case, in a formidable programme that could easily be summed up by the one title fit to do the subject justice: ‘Lavitola Live’. For days now, thanks to the extraordinary contribution of Sigfrido Ranucci, ‘Lavitola Live’ has been offering memorable lessons on the essential need to respect due process within the judicial system. And in this marvellous reversal of roles, with Ranucci having gone overnight from being the prince of the people’s court to the prince of the legal system upholding due process, the presenter of “Report”, with passion, dedication and self-sacrifice, in the new “Lavitola Live” format – which we hope RAI will offer him as soon as possible – has begun to act as a great accuser of a rigged system to which he himself has often lent a hand: the legitimisation of the culture of the scalp.

The commendable commitment with which Ranucci has fought for due process in recent days has shed light on a number of practices which we are certain Ranucci will continue to oppose even once the matter of those behind the attack has been clarified. Ranucci, as we know, despite the serious allegations against Valter Lavitola – who is under investigation as the instigator of the attack on Ranucci – has continued to describe Lavitola as a friend, has continued to defend his innocence, and has sued for defamation those who, through ‘speculation and insinuations’, have tried to portray the victim of the attack as its possible beneficiary. Thanks to Ranucci’s heroic daily lesson in the rule of law, Lavitola would have plenty of material to boost his viewing figures if he were on live television. We know that even for Ranucci, leaks are finally a problem (last Monday he denounced the disclosure of confidential documents relating to the investigation into the attack). We know that, for Ranucci too, shady friendships are not proof of guilt (just ask Lavitola). We know that following the investigations using the arsenal of insinuations – a practice which, in the recent past, Ranucci has always adopted with a certain consistency (just ask Carlo Nordio) – is to be regarded as a deplorable act and so now, thanks to Ranucci, we shall remember this in the future as well. We know that even the most staunch supporters of vigilante justice regard insinuations as dangerous if they lack any evidence beyond mere allusions. We know, furthermore, that criticising a magistrate who is conducting an investigation, by calling their work into question – as Ranucci has chosen to do by charging headlong at the public prosecutor investigating Lavitola as the instigator of the attack – “I know him,” says Ranucci, “he’d never do that, he’s a friend” – is not a subversive act but a right enjoyed by those who wish to exercise freedom of criticism and also of thought (a point worth remembering when Ranucci’s party returns one day to portray every little finger raised to comment on, and possibly criticise, an investigation as evidence of an authoritarian shift in the country). We know, too, that invading privacy is not a problem if it is the champion of good who does so (Ranucci revealed an illness affecting Lavitola’s son; one wonders what has become of the Journalists’ Association). We also know that associating with a convicted criminal, such as Lavitola, is not a criminal offence – if anything, a sin – and that one can be honest, upright and pure even if one chooses to associate with an impure person, because sins are one thing and criminal offences another; and at least in this case, in the ‘Lavitola Live’ programme, the categories of sinners and criminals can be distinguished. We know that having friends who are Freemasons is no big deal (Lavitola is one). We know that presuming a suspect to be innocent until proven guilty is a duty (Lavitola is one). We know that interfering in investigations is not an attempt to mislead the authorities but is itself a right (Lavitola and Ranucci have been talking openly about the investigations for days; had others done so, who knows what would have happened). We know that associating with a Freemason is not proof of guilt, nor is it an indication that you are a criminal; it does not lead to any kind of osmosis, but is a right like any other in a free country where a friendship cannot be regarded as a possible sign of a criminal network in its infancy. We know that a single chat message does not necessarily indicate a relationship between two people. We know that a temporal coincidence is not proof of causation: if something happens after one person has met another, it does not mean that the first event caused the second. We know that protecting one’s reputation does not mean intimidating the press, and we know that demanding respect for legal safeguards during the preliminary investigation stage does not mean muzzling the right to report the news; it means protecting the rule of law. We know that threatening legal action against newspapers that play on insinuations is not an attack on press freedom but an act aimed at protecting one’s reputation. And we know, finally, that the burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the defendant, and that the due process applied in the Lavitola case, however hypocritical, is a demonstration of respect for the rule of law.

It is still difficult to get a clear picture of what really happened in the Lavitola–Ranucci affair. It is difficult to gauge how strong the evidence against Lavitola is. It is difficult to understand the reasons behind the attack on Ranucci. It is difficult to discern, in Ranucci’s defence of Lavitola, where friendship ends and where the fear begins that something dangerous might arise from the breakdown of that friendship. But what should be easy to say is that Ranucci’s defence of his friend Lavitola is not merely a dismantling of the "Report" model. It is something more: it is an improvised but, in its own way, effective manual for resisting the culture of public shaming, for waging an all-out battle against the media-judicial circus. If Ranucci were to wonder how the culture of suspicion has become so widespread in Italy, he could visit Rai Play and take a close look to see if there is any programme in recent years that has gone to great lengths to turn friendships into evidence of guilt, insinuations an investigative technique, and the ‘people’s court’ the ideal forum for judging others’ lives and bringing down heads using Jacobin methods – methods against which our favourite programme, "Lavitola in diretta", has been heroically fighting for days.