Viva Zapatero! Page #6

---

So l decided to file a lawsuit.

Ferruccio De Bortoli is a perfect

example in the world of press.

They established a precedent.

They can fire

the editor-in-chief of a newspaper,

even if they don't own it.

l gave up the editorship

of ''Corriere della Sera'' a year ago.

lt was a completely

personal decision.

lt's no secret that l had problems

with the prime minister

and it's no secret

that his lawyers are persisting

with various lawsuits.

l must say that l find this

to be rather significant

of a pathology in the system.

Unfortunately in ltaly,

the phenomenon exists

of ''who doesn't agree with me,

is the enemy,

therefore allied with

those who are against me.''

You can't have professionals

who are allowed to perform

their job fairly, sometimes bravely.

We've lost the ''Corriere''

and ltalian democracy

has lost its most

important newspaper.

The newspaper is lost.

The new editor-in-chief

is honest and respectable,

but he is not like

my friend, ex-editor De Bortoli.

lt's a scandal

that they fired Biagi...

..and Santoro.

Excuse me.

lf they're capable

of firing Biagi and Santoro,

they could easily fire us,

we're less important !

And no one could do anything,

not even raise an eyebrow

because Berlusconi is ruthless !

Then we got involved with

the daily cases of censorship

at TG1 , radio news reports...

Often editors say

to their reporters:

''l got a 'phone call'.

We can't talk about this anymore''.

lt happens all the time,

it's a matter of numbers.

- This seriously ?

- Never so violently.

Entire stories

were not allowed to be mentioned.

Even page formats !

News stories aren't prioritised

according to journalistic standards.

lt's a completely different matter,

it's political.

And there are cases

of structural censorship

like what happened with Channel 7,

it was ''preventive''.

''Since Channel 7

is an independent station,

let's kill it from the start,

so it can't be independent.

We'll have someone

who we can control buy it,

we'll do favours for him,

and he'll do some for us.

We'll make sure he doesn't call

the people we kick off other channels

otherwise it's pointless.''

ls the prime minister happy about

the new independent channel ?

- Are you happy ?

- What the hell !

- What the hell are you saying ?

- But it's a for-profit TV station.

- lt's a disgrace !

- Why ?

ls the profit for me

or someone else ?

- Someone else.

- Well, then !

- l see...

- That's a conflict of interest !

- How ?

- lt is, all right !

But, Mr Prime Minister...

You either have democracy,

or censorship.

The two things

cannot coexist.

lf what happened to people

like Santoro, Biagi, Luttazzi,

Tagliafico, Rossi, etc, etc,

was censorship,

all our members of parliament...

would have nailed themselves

to their seats.

They would have gone

on hunger strike !

Yet our members of parliament

still hesitate to

use the word censorship !

Let's say right now...

RAl...

is noticing...

some restriction on pluralism

that l'll have to explain better...

The opposition is somehow

going along with

the rules of the game

because they accepted them.

Because they're playing the game.

Because from that point of view,

l think...

one side decided

to stop attacking for real.

To stop pressing the question

as long as they could keep

the little they had.

l don't think the opposition

has any idea what's going on.

lf tomorrow all the present

party leaders came back,

they'd still make 90% of the same

mistakes they made in 1996

and would still be trying

to get their men back in.

The opposition has to realize

they need a new concept,

a revolution of the ltalian

television and radio system.

They need to give up

control of television.

Zapatero was elected

and immediately started

abolishing the law

that let the prime minister

appoint public TV executives.

l hope that is irreversible

and that people in ltaly want it too

once the regime has fallen,

if it ever does.

Because it's not tolerable

that political parties

appoint public television.

The problem goes beyond Berlusconi

because politicians took

possession of RAl

long before Berlusconi

ever got into politics.

He got involved and took advantage

of a situation

other people had created.

That's why Centre-Left parties

don't say a word

about this kind of logic,

they see nothing strange about it.

ln 2003 a Left party leader made

shocking declarations to the House.

Very few ltalians

were ever aware of it.

Berlusconi knows that in 1994

he was guaranteed that

his corporation wouldn't be touched

if the government changed.

He knows and

and so does Honourable Letta.

But you called us

a ''regime'' back then

even though we didn't pass

a law against conflict of interest,

we allowed Berlusconi to run

for office despite his media license

and Mediaset's sales jumped

while we had the majority...

On behalf of which of your voters

were these decisions made ?

And in the interest of whom ?

Some of the laws

most detrimental to the Centre-Left

and most favourable

to Berlusconi and his cronies

were made

when the Centre-Left had majority.

l'm talking about

white-collar crime laws,

laws regarding public television

that saved Mediaset's Channel 4,

the shelving of

the Anti-Corruption Commission,

the laws on conflict of interest.

Why did Berlusconi cause the

two-Chamber commission to fail after

the Centre-Left made laws

that were not in

the interest of the general public,

but were laws that Berlusconi

and his cronies asked for ?

ln February 2005, Furio Colombo,

after a long struggle

with left-wing leaders,

was forced to resign from

the leftist paper Unit

since it questioned

Berlusconi's legitimacy

more than any other newspaper.

Why were so many of them persuaded

that it's wrong and damaging

to so passionately deal with

the man that is so determined

to ruin the country,

freedom and the constitution

and regurgitate fascism,

moral, psychological

and political poverty

as well as pre-Nazi thought

like that of the Northern League ?

Why must one want

to communicate

with someone

we don't want to listen to

because he has nothing to tell us ?

This is the mystery

l leave you with.

''Freedom means saying 2 + 2 = 4.

lf that is granted, all else follows''

said Orwell.

What is obvious, ridiculous and true

must be defended.

lt's obvious that if our freedom

of expression is restricted,

whoever governs

can do whatever he wants.

Think about me,

who by law cannot run for office

or even become a representative, is

now prime minister of the country !

That is so exhilarating !

This should give

every citizen lots of hope !

Just relax.

Using money nobody knows

where it came from !

And even though everyone knew it,

no one stopped me !

The opposition was elected

so they'd pass a law

against conflict of interest

and they didn't even do it !

They see all my china

and drop to their knees !

So l generously tell them:

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes