Ranucci has lost his most precious asset: his credibility. Aldo Grasso speaks out

The RAI Ethics Code Committee, in its wisdom, has taken a few extra hours to make public its opinion on Sigfrido Ranucci, as to whether or not he has complied with ‘the obligations of loyalty, fairness, impartiality and transparency’. This opinion is not a verdict, although it is clear to everyone that it will have a decisive influence on Ranucci’s future at the helm of ‘Report’ and on the fate of the programme itself. But beyond ethical opinions – which should never be turned into verdicts – there is an objective fact, one that Ranucci has, in a sense, helped to bring about himself, almost as if by parthenogenesis: “However this affair ends, there is one aspect that comes first and matters more than the very act of presenting a programme. Ranucci has lost his greatest asset, the most precious asset for someone like him: he has lost his credibility’. This is the view – or critical judgement – of Aldo Grasso, a television historian and commentator for the Corriere della Sera, who has never been lenient towards the ‘Ranucci model’ in the past, but who has always expressed his views in a measured manner, as a keen observer. “Given his role, and the type of journalism he represents – judicial, oracular – credibility really is everything. Now, the outcome of the investigation into Lavitola is irrelevant; the mere fact that the public might believe he allowed himself to be manipulated, that he was not transparent, is the worst damage he has largely brought upon himself.”

Will ‘Report’ survive all this, with or without its presenter? And what will be the impact on television of this change, which seems inevitable? ‘His personal role in this affair doesn’t matter so much. For years I have openly said that it is the ‘Report method’ that is at fault. It is a journalistic anomaly, a degeneration of what investigative journalism has always been, both within and outside public service television. This claim to ‘integrity’, this pretence of being the only ones to defend the ‘stronghold of independent information’, is mere rhetoric. Above all because it is based on a method consisting of surreptitiously recorded audio, video tailing, and on-screen captions screaming ‘exclusive’. This is not what defines investigative journalism. Instead, it is a vulgar display of methods that are not always transparent, and which is now crumbling. When you steal a phone call between Sangiuliano and his wife, you’re pulling a dirty trick. And that’s it. This is the Ranucci method, or rather the evolution of "Report" as produced by him. But now he has lost his greatest asset: credibility. Because the programme, regardless of the often excellent quality of its contributors, was above all about him – his demeanour, the way he presented himself to the public, shirt and assertiveness included.” Apart from the format, is there an element of personality cult that has ruined the programme, Lavitola aside? “The truth is that television goes to your head. It makes you lose sight of yourself and your surroundings. You become someone else; we’ve seen this happen often. For me, the litmus test of Ranucci’s shallowness in this regard was reading his book. Setting aside the content, it’s terribly written – full of clichés, soap-opera-style psychological musings, and an unchecked ego. I repeat, Ranucci’s problem today isn’t Lavitola – that’s a minor issue – it’s that he’s lost his credibility.” One could say he’s another victim of the Ferragni theorem. “In many respects, yes.” 
But what about the future of "Report"? Could it survive, or reinvent itself, with a different presenter or format? “It’s unlikely. Television always craves personalisation, regardless of stylistic elements or direction. What matters is who’s on screen presenting, who’s putting the show together. In television, the ‘brand’ is fundamental – it’s about recognisability and assurance.”. Isn’t the programme’s reputation – backed by Milena Gabanelli’s experience – enough? “They are two different stories, both in terms of television and journalism. Ranucci built his reputation in the wake of Gabanelli’s programme, but he transformed it profoundly; so to speak, he made it explode, he turned up the heat, he turned it into fireworks. Once you’ve reached that level, there’s no going back. If you normalise it, if you cool it down, you shut it down. Replacing the presenter – even if they came from the editorial team – wouldn’t change the outcome.” Which is, after all, what many believe Rai actually intends to do… “What public service television intends to do – and not just in the field of news – is truly incomprehensible, and this isn’t a recent development.” Then there’s politics. “That has other interpretations, often obvious ones. But it must be said that it was Ranucci himself who handed a gift to those who wanted to shut him down.” There’s been talk recently of a possible new format without a presenter, like Rai’s legendary “TV7” from the 1960s, which featured reports by Bisiach, Augias and people of that calibre. “They’ve tried many times to recreate TV7, but they’ve never succeeded. Television has changed too. Do you broadcast an in-depth feature without any ‘framing’ around it – no studio, no commentary – in prime time? They’ll tell you no. Do you broadcast it in the late evening? Nobody watches it. ‘Report’ works, or worked, the way it is, as a ‘Ranucci’ programme. A different format would be a different programme.”

What would Rai lose – or, one might argue without even needing to be particularly politically malicious, what would it gain – from the end of the ‘Report’ model? Is there not, in this case too, the possibility of a move to private channels, such as La7? ‘Setting aside political contingencies and considerations, I would say no. For a structural reason. ‘Report’ is a resource-intensive programme; it requires a large editorial team – around fifty people – lengthy production times, and a robust in-house legal department to oversee every investigation. For a private broadcaster, this would be an impossible cost. What must unfortunately be said, however, is that a programme like ‘Report’, had it not become what we have described, would truly have been the classic public service current affairs programme. Just as the investigative journalism of Zavoli, Zatterin and Biagi once was. Something that today’s Rai is unable to produce, assuming it even wants to.” But in the case of ‘Report’, perhaps it isn’t entirely Rai’s fault. “I can say this now because I’ve been writing about it for some time: Ranucci’s real downfall wasn’t Lavitola; it was when he agreed to be brought in by the Five Star Movement, to be appointed deputy director – thereby establishing for himself an internal power base, within the editorial team and the organisation, that was almost untouchable. From immunity to legal protection to the freedom to make decisions practically without any challenge.” He has effectively turned “Report” into an exclave of Rai, like Ceuta. “Exactly. In television, investigative journalism always needs a name and a surname, a face. But when that name and surname loses its only asset – credibility – it inevitably drags the whole formula down with it.”