The lesson from the Ranucci-Lavitola saga that we have failed to learn

The Ranucci-Lavitola saga – that is to say, the paradoxical and unprecedented story, as it stands, of a ‘love attack’ designed to catapult an already popular journalist, without his knowledge, into the upper echelons of mainstream politics – could have provided an opportunity for a small, and perhaps not so small, step forward in the civic development of our country. Circumstances have, in fact, ended up providing all the necessary ingredients for a significant leap forward in our public life. On the one hand, Ranucci, the editorial team of ‘Report’ (about whom far too little is ever said), and the entire political, journalistic and public opinion camp that sees that programme as the ideal model of news reporting and public service, have had – and are having – the chance to reflect ‘first-hand’, as they used to say, on the serious shortcomings and limitations of that model. On the other hand, the critics of that model and that journalistic endeavour have had – and are still having – the opportunity to demonstrate in practice that one can legitimately engage in the fiercest political controversy against it, without, however, resorting to the tools and stylistic features typical of the ‘Report’ model. In short, an unmissable opportunity to secularise political debate and ensure the coherence of critical thinking. The result? A disaster. One need only reflect on some of the crucial issues raised by the affair to realise this.

Take the issue of personal associations, for example. Today, Ranucci and his defenders invoke a sacrosanct principle – one which, I would say, lies at the very foundation of secular culture. People are judged by their actions, not by the company they keep. Such associations therefore legitimately contribute to the judgement of an individual only if they influence, guide and shape that person’s actual behaviour. I may have a thousand reasons for associating with, and if necessary forming fraternal or family ties with, a person with a criminal record, whilst at the same time insisting on being judged not for this, but for my actual day-to-day actions. I agree wholeheartedly. But Ranucci, his editors and his ardent supporters must surely concede that the entire journalistic campaign was built in flagrant violation of this very principle which they now invoke with such passionate conviction. Otherwise, how could it even occur to you – and these are just the first examples that spring to mind – to put together reports on a selfie (I repeat: a selfie!) of Giorgia Meloni with (apparently) a convicted criminal, or of Colosimo with Ciavardini? However, tell me if you have heard – or if you can plausibly imagine hearing in the near future – any words of self-critical reflection on the theme ‘tell me who you walk with and I’ll tell you who you are’. I don’t think so. If, however, on the opposite side of the argument, exactly the same line of reasoning is applied to the close friendship between Ranucci and Lavitola – without specifying whether, in what way, or on what specific occasion this friendship actually influenced or shaped the journalist’s professional conduct – then all that is being done is to plunder the ‘Report’ method, thereby legitimising it. The same applies to the crucial, long-standing issue of telephone wiretaps, the journalistic use that is usually made of them, and the resulting, conflicting political initiatives to regulate them. There is simply no way of establishing, in this country, the (constitutional!) idea of the inviolability of private conversations, let alone their inherent unreliability, precisely because they are an expression – in the certainty of not being overheard by third parties – of the most unbridled, arbitrary and unquestionable freedom to confess scathing truths but, equally, to lie, boast, be ironic, influence, and even mess about. Consequently, the political viewpoint of those who take a stand in defence of the principle of the inviolability of private conversations, of the strictly exceptional nature of wiretapping, and of a more widespread and effective ban on publishing their contents, is stigmatised as an enemy of free information, as well as – inevitably – a saboteur of the judiciary’s investigative powers.

Programmes such as ‘Report’ or newspapers such as Il Fatto Quotidiano are the standard-bearers for the indiscriminate eavesdropping on private conversations and their unrestricted and unchecked publication. Even the most private conversation between a married couple, held in the interest of marital fidelity, has been subject to the claimed freedom to break a story, provided the husband is a minister. Today, Ranucci is being overwhelmed by a tsunami of wiretaps, chats and conversations, which are ravaging his professional and private life with the uncontrollable and unstoppable violence characteristic of that deadly, misused weapon. The very same weapon with which he built the professional fortunes of ‘Report’ and his own, and with them the idolatrous enthusiasm of ‘his people’. Anyone with a good grounding in the classics knows that one should not trifle with the goddess Nemesis in life. Yet it is no less disheartening and distressing to witness the unbridled, disorderly, almost orgiastic abuse—under the pretext of the day of reckoning commanded by that goddess—of Ranucci’s wiretaps and chats, even the most private ones, by those who have always thundered against that system and that method, going so far as to propose legislative measures consistent with that line of thinking. Do these individuals not realise how, and to what extent, they are themselves—first and foremost—irresponsibly cementing the definitive triumph of the Report model?

In conclusion, we are simply stating the obvious here. Secular culture in Italy – that which takes liberal values, namely the primary defence of individual rights to freedom, as its founding principle, and which knows how to live by those principles with rigorous and consistent integrity, paying the price when necessary to safeguard them – very clearly belongs to a minority. It has always been this way, and it will continue to be so. It is a comfort, however, to remember that this minority has also had the strength, on more than one occasion – I am thinking of Marco Pannella’s radical experience – to change the history of this country. So, full steam ahead; let us not lose hope (“Spes contra spem”, as Marco himself warned), despite everything.