-2.4 C
New York
Wednesday, February 1, 2023

Don't miss

Giomi, that’s why I voted against the Agcom resolution

- Advertisement -

” Yesterday I voted against AgCom resolution no. 304/22 / CONS, adopted in the face of various reports received in relation to the political confrontation scheduled by the program “Porta a Porta” for 22 September “said Commissioner Elisa Giomi today.
“I believe that protecting a level playing field and its key principles – equal opportunities and pluralism of political forces, completeness, impartiality and objectivity of information – essentially means multiplying, and not reducing, the opportunities for comparison between points of view, even through formulas capable of interesting the public and encouraging informed participation in the electoral competition “continues Giomi.
According to the Commissioner, the resolution risks jeopardizing these objectives by considering “non-compliant” with the legislation on par condicio “a single televised confrontation between only two political subjects (…) capable of determining, for the subjects participating in the confrontation, an undue advantage electoral than the others “. This is a hypothesis of violation that has no basis, neither in the preliminary findings of AgCom nor in the statements of the editorial staff of “Porta a Porta”, which has indeed immediately clarified its willingness to host more leaders and more comparisons between leader, even on the same evening. Agitating such a hypothesis could therefore constitute an instrumental interference in public service programming and risks also inhibiting the editorial freedom of other broadcasters as well as the initiatives of politicians.
“In fact, there are cases in which” all or none “from an equal principle risks becoming a censorship tool. Since there are four coalitions, mainly with multiple lists within, to ensure” matrix “comparisons, of all with all, a artificial intelligence. We could then do without human intelligence, and the daily commitment of professionals and information professionals, but I don’t know if public opinion would gain from it. And certainly it would not gain if, in the name of an ideal of equality of completely abstracted from the concrete logics of television operation, we renounced more flexible formats – such as the comparison, in fact, widely envisaged by the sector regulations and consolidated in the media representation of the political debate “adds Giomi.
No “undue electoral advantage” derives from the order of appearance of the comparisons themselves, according to studies on the reception of political campaigns, which teach that those who speak first do not necessarily enjoy favorable conditions. In any case, there is always a beginning, and it is part of the total self-determination of the broadcasters to choose which combination to start from, as long as everyone is given the same opportunities, which the implementing resolution indicates very clearly in the format, in the type of intervention, in the frequency. of the program, in the treated topic. “Another critical point of the resolution is:” The definition of the modalities of possible comparisons between politicians cannot be left to the politicians themselves, as this definition falls within the editorial responsibility of the directors in charge of the programs “underlines the Commissioner who specifies:” At on the contrary, each politician has the right to propose forms and methods of comparison with others and others, meeting the only limit of their consent, the availability of the transmission and the obligation, on the part of this, to ensure equal treatment of above “.” The risk I see in the approach of the resolution, in short, is the censorship of the freedom of journalists and political exponents and the frustration of their search for innovative forms of communication, capable of increasing the participation of citizens in the political debate and then to the public sphere “the Commissioner concludes” In the method, the entire path it has led upon the adoption of the resolution it is studded with irregularities. The resolution is the result of a completely irrational procedural process, which overcomes the solution proposed by the Offices at the outcome of their investigation and arises as the result of a problematic overlap between the investigative functions of the offices and the decision-making functions of the Board. Moreover, this took place without any information to all the members of the Board, who received the draft resolution only a few minutes before the meeting on 24 August. Finally, the umpteenth leak of news is unmentionable: the assessments sketched out in a previous informal meeting between only 5 members arrive in detail in the press of the following days, anticipating decisions not yet adopted and declaring the Council’s inability to maintain confidentiality of their most delicate dossiers “.

- Advertisement -

Source: Ansa

- Advertisement -

Latest Posts