First, it is important to get the bigger picture. Berlusconi can be credited for breaking the stranglehold of state-run television over nationwide broadcasting back in the 1980s. He achieved this through a mixture of shrewd marketing and skilful political lobbying, which deserves a fuller treatment than I can give here.
At the outset he had a virtual monopoly on non-state national broadcasting. But eventually, thanks to the growth of other commercial broadcasters and to the rulings of the Constitutional Court, he has relinquished that grip, and is bound to relinquish it even further in the near future. That his television channels are successful, and that they command a high audience share, should not be considered as ‘original sin’. They are well suited to the tastes of a wide public.
Readers should not get the picture of a suffocating and stifling monopoly. Berlusconi’s ascent was a sign of freedom of choice. Today if one switches on the television (and I am not talking of digital television) one is confronted with at least 7 national channels, and a bewildering variety of local ones, all different in ownership and inspiration. Perhaps the quality of all this is questionable, but that is another question. Audience share is not a god-given gift; it has to be captured day by day.
Berlusconi’s channels
The next point raised by Mastrolonardo, would seem pretty obvious. Berlusconi has used his Mediaset channels as vehicles for his political propaganda – i.e., to further his own political fortunes as well as those of Forza Italia (the party that he founded) and of the ‘Casa della Liberta’ (the coalition that brought him to power).
A stronger version of this argument, already gainsaid on this site by Paolo Mancini and Dan Hallin, is that Berlusconi won elections in 1994 and 2001 thanks to his television assets. Some even argue that Berlusconi’s real interest in entering the political arena was to ensure that: his media empire was not threatened by strong anti-trust laws, that his dubious dealings were not exposed, and that his personal fortunes would prosper. To what extent does the evidence bear this out?
Mastrolonardo quotes motley figures on the last few years, showing that Berlusconi had a larger share of ‘screen’ time than any other political leader - thanks to very generous coverage by Mediaset. These figures are neither coherent nor telling. They are not, for example, weighted according to the audience share of different time-bands. But, even taken at face value, they are no devastating indictment.
On Mediaset, it appears that “ Berlusconi was on the screen for 1427 minutes compared to 887 minutes for Francesco Rutelli, the centre left candidate” during the last electoral campaign. This is not saying very much. The centre left was much less ‘presidential’ than the centre right and displayed at least four national leaders: Rutelli, Amato (the incumbent Prime Minister), D’Alema and Fassino, not to mention other vociferous opposition leaders such as Di Pietro and Bertinotti. Was the share allocated to the opposition as a whole very different from the one enjoyed by Berlusconi and his allies?
Maybe Berlusconi still had an advantage on Mediaset, but I would be prepared to stick my neck out and say that it was not overwhelming. Mediaset’s normal programming has always allowed ample space for centre left views. The most popular show on Mediaset’s Canale 5 channel, the ‘Maurizio Costanzo show’, is led by a notoriously leftist anchorman. It owes its appeal to its daily dispensation of populist, left-leaning common sense. Maurizio Costanzo himself has a prominent managerial role within Mediaset.
Left-wing or left-leaning journalists are far from the exception in Canale 5; many say they are the rule. Mediaset’s Rete 4, on the other hand, has a well-known centre right bias, as far as information is concerned. But then, information is not a very important part of Rete 4.
RAI: tug-of-war
RAI is altogether a different question. It has always been dominated by politics. During the 1990s new laws were introduced to try and bolster its autonomy and independence from day-to-day political meddling. As part of this process its Board is now appointed by the Presidents of the two branches of Parliament, who, due to their institutional role, were seen, and indeed have proved to be, somewhat above the fray, despite being designated by the governing coalition. Their standing is high enough to be able to hold their own when faced with raw political pressures.
The new Board appointed a few weeks ago is composed of eminent professionals from a variety of backgrounds. Two of them were designated by the opposition parties, three by the governing coalition. The President, Antonio Baldassarre, had held one of the most prestigious jobs in the judiciary, having been President of the Constitutional Court. His publications command wide respect.
RAI is also subject to the close scrutiny of a Parliamentary committee, chaired by an opposition MP. It’s as good as you get, under the fractious and highly politicised Italian system. The intention is to preserve a mixture of different opinions. To argue that Berlusconi controls RAI is to demean the whole democratic process.
The parties of the centre left have themselves manipulated their position within RAI, attempting to use it as an anti-Berlusconi propaganda weapon, before and after the elections (to little avail, as it turned out).
I will not begin here to examine the question of pink or red nepotism surrounding RAI appointments over a generation. In any case, I do not want to make a black and white case. RAI has been a broad church. It’s a question of style and degree, and we hope the new Board will be better than the old one.
The ballot box is the acid test
What about the accusation that Berlusconi and Forza Italia are TV products? This is easily dismissed. They have both gained and lost votes in past elections. This had little to do with television programming, much more with national opinion trends and the rough-and-tumble of the political contest.
The centre left won a national vote in 1996 and lost one in 2001, arguably because they were seen to have failed to deliver on their objectives. This is the acid test of the democratic process, which the introduction of the first-past-the-post system has brought, in a more full and telling form, into Italian politics.
What then of the final deadly weapon of the Left – Berlusconi is in politics to suit himself? This is an attractive argument – if proven it would be terminal. But because it is very politically charged, perhaps they need to take it to the Italian people and convince them of it, once and for all. That is, if they are committed to the democratic process as it works in the West.
