Presutti steps down as presenter of Report: “I hope this will help the programme that shaped me”

It came in the evening, immediately after the meeting between Paolo Corsini, director of Rai’s Approfondimento programme, and the most staunch members of the Report editorial team: the first major development in the case that is monopolising the attention of public television. Giulia Presutti, who had been named as co-presenter alongside Daniele Piervincenzi, has decided to step down. In an email sent to Corsini, the journalist explained that she had taken this decision “in the hope of helping, in this way, the programme that trained me and to which I have had the honour of contributing. A programme so beloved, which has given so much to the public and to our organisation, cannot become bogged down in such petty discussions and exchanges; nor do I believe that its future can be tied to individual names and personalities”.

The company reportedly tried to make her change her mind, but Presutti, having taken note of the editorial team’s stance – which had drawn a firm line precisely over the names of the presenters, herself and Piervicenzi – is said to have stood firm on her decision. Efforts are therefore continuing to find a solution that might prevent the correspondents from walking out and the programme – due to start on 8 November on Rai3 – from being postponed. Following Presutti’s withdrawal, it is now Corsini who is expecting concessions from the editorial team, possibly giving the go-ahead for a rotating presenting arrangement.

Meanwhile, yesterday the journalist was attacked once again by Sigfrido Ranucci, who commented on Facebook regarding the report published by Il Domani, according to which Presutti was said to have authored, together with Alessandro Perozzi, a ‘fake report’ on the Cutro disaster that was broadcast on Agorà on Rai3 in 2023. “If confirmed, this would be extremely serious,” wrote the former presenter.

Meanwhile, Roberto De Vita, Sigfrido’s lawyer, has stated that “Rai, having formally acknowledged the existence of ‘constant pressure, lack of transparency, conflict of interest, interference and objective incompatibility’, has announced that it does not intend to specify the reasons behind what it set out in the removal order”. The organization has in fact stated that it had provided the requested documentation, which was evidently deemed insufficient by the lawyers.