Filippo Facci
"Marco Travaglio Sbrocca seriously, but to explain it is necessary riassuntino. Last Thursday, Annozero, was that he was talking about the dangerous Guido Bertolaso \u200b\u200bacquaintances, and then a partner, Nicola Porro of the Journal, has noted that attendance could be a dangerous happened to him, then he, Travaglio, has had a disproportionate reaction objectively and took Nicola Porro maleparole (' liberal of my boots, "and worse) after Maurizio Belpietro quietly tried to come back, then was taken to maleparole he ('braying, braying well) then, thanks Michele Santoro, the end Belpietro Porro and were unable to say what they meant. In a public letter to Santoro, then, Labor and Belpietro Porro wrote that "are not journalists," "attend specialized courses ',' move to take the pocket money ',' if you do not drop enough to be rebuked or downloaded from the master" , the rest "do not have any obligation to truth, not afraid to draw complaints because Berlusconi" expense fund "are" fags ass of others and enjoy themselves because "wallow in the shit and have to drag clean to show people that everything is shit. " If so, reread.
Then he mazzulato Santoro (his Kletter is as follows, in my beautiful) but Travaglio, dazed, as if nothing has started. In his book on the internet, and in a counter-reply on the facts, circumstances that Ballarò "Bertolaso \u200b\u200bto be granted to a gala event at the expense of the taxpayer" and that anyway the things she said Bertolaso \u200b\u200b"are crap, yet he was allowed to say that crap to Ballaro. While Annozero, by contrast, Leek and Belpietro have done "what they always do, the lawyers office 'and the rest have lied about: «Mi calunniano», «calunnia personale», «falsità, diffamazioni, calunnie». Sono tutte espressioni di Travaglio.
Ora, primo: rendetevi conto. Rendetevi conto della deriva di questo qui, l’unico giornalista della Terra. Sono tutti «merda», dicono «stronzate», manco Santoro va più bene. E neanche Di Pietro – ma qui lo perdoniamo.
Secondo: non c’è nessuna calunnia. Travaglio ha frequentato intimamente un poliziotto tre mesi prima che lo arrestassero perché vendeva notizie e prima che lo condannassero per favoreggiamento di un mafioso, un prestanome di Bernardo Provenzano. Nessuna calunnia: è Travaglio che ogni volta sposta il tiro e si difende from an accusation that none of the above did: "I've documented that holiday to the last penny," he wrote, "I have paid the I," "should I feel ashamed that even after I have documented everything with checks '. That continues to be indignant, Travaglio, a veiled accusation that only Giuseppe D'Avanzo of La Repubblica threw out long ago: that he had made to pay the rental by the above nominee of Bernardo Provenzano, something that no one has ever written (on Free and Il Giornale) and that if anything was deemed ridiculous and improbable hypothesis, for example, by myself.
So what's the problem? The problem è che Travaglio, anche solo della frequentazione del tizio poi condannato, si vergogna come un ladro: «Mi ha detto che c’era un villaggio turistico», ha cercato di liquidare la faccenda l’altro ieri, «e sono andato a affittarmi una casetta dove, tra varie decine e decine di persone, c’era anche la sua». Si vergogna, cioè, che questo tizio gli abbia invece organizzato le vacanze, fatto pagare una cifra ridicola al momento del conto, prestato arredi e suppellettili per la casa disadorna, ci abbia giocato a tennis, e, con famiglia e figli, abbiano sguazzato nella – solamente – piscina del residence. Si vergogna di questo perché «ha una reputazione» e la sua purezza ne risentirebbe. We are close to madness.
Third and final question. The official excuse that Travaglio Sbrocco, he said, would be this: the stakeholders - such as those by Porro and Belpietro - straying from the subject and talk about something else, not to mention that "if you shut up you authorize anyone to think that something to hide, but if you talk you should talk for half an hour. " Time: the relevance of the topic has already explained Belpietro Liber up and I'm not coming back. It must be said, however, that if Labor was right - and not have it - the stylistic complaint is that what he has completed better than anyone. Annozero wagers in which the monologue of a different, the theme of the evening, you do not count: it depends on the theme and guests. Once, say, there was a stone that was under scrutiny because he had investigated the child in Naples: Labor did a monologue on Previti and Cirino Pomicino. The de-legitimization-digression is just the heart of language travagliesco: "The affected Caio", "the former partner of Guy Mafia," "Harry the thief on the run," all liquidations by two seconds and that yes, indeed, if you should speak explain, "you should talk for half an hour." Labor claims it only for himself, otherwise the parties are silent, the limit will not be invited to Annozero. He has a reputation. It's not like Journal of the journalists who "take the salary to be a convict," he wrote Saturday about digressions, is not "Free as those who continue to make the directors of a publisher, Angelucci, who was arrested twice." Just stopped, among other things, and not condemned: but it is specified here, because we are slaves and we have time, even half an hour. We do not have a reputation, did not have Angelucci, did not have any of the thousands that our rubbish for a living. Labor's got the reputation. What, however, not clear.
Below you will find more material than the correspondence Santoro-Travaglio.
***
just after 22 am in the studio and there is a thread of nervousness: a couple of guests - Maurizio Belpietro Libero Nicola Porro and the newspaper - are winning points in defend Bertolaso, defined at one point "absolutely unable" by Marco Travaglio sniffing away, however, had made an own goal. "No, no, Mauritius, another thing ... I meant," that spoke of "a gentleman who is not aware of who is in the room at his side, who are the people he surrounds it, and the inappropriateness of establishing relationships familiarity with .... " Heresy è qui. Nicolo Porro, sottotraccia, gli dice: «Travaglio, dài, sarà capitato anche a te di frequentare persone che non si sarebbe dovuto frequentare», «assolutamente no… assolutamente no… e intanto io non sono il capo della protezione civile… ». Travaglio si è palesemente agitato ma Porro insiste, e allora ancora Travaglio: «Io non accetto questo tono intimidatorio, io non sono il capo della protezione civile… io non ho mai dato una lira pubblica… ». Porro: «Cioè, tutti possono accettare il tuo tono intimidatorio, mentre tu…?». «Ma vergognati, stiamo parlando di denaro pubblico». «Porro: «Ma stai calmo, stai calmo, prenditi un’aspirina…». Travaglio: "These liberals ... liberals hell of my boots ...." Porro: "Two, aspirin." Travaglio: "You're a poor man you are." The audience applauds Travaglio, Obviously. Flying a "moron" and a "moron" as long as truncated Santoro: "He always falls down in this thing," he said referring to its brand, which suggests: "But let them incite, chissefrega ... you fall forever in this thing ...." Then sends a service that cools everything. but only for a while '. Later, in fact, after speaking of Olympic swimming pools 52 meters long, returns to the theme of acquaintances. Tap Belpietro: "... if we must pay attention to all le frequentazioni, forse noi dobbiamo spiegare ai telespettatori, a casa, che cosa è successo qui prima: ossia come mai Marco Travaglio si è tanto arrabbiato quando si è parlato di frequentazioni… ». Ma ricomincia il caos. Belpietro: «Tu, Marco, sei stato accusato da un tuo collega di Repubblica… ». Ma non riesce a dirlo, Travaglio vuole palesemente buttarla in caciara e Belpietro ne prende atto. Travaglio: «Ma parla sinché vuoi… raglia sinché vuoi… spiega perché Bertolaso… ». Belpietro «Tu sei stato accusato, volevo dire, di aver frequentato un signore che ha favorito la mafia… E tu non hai commesso nulla, ma…». Travaglio: «Siete fuori di testa… ma pensate ai vostri editori…». Pure Santoro nota il nervo scoperto di Travaglio, gli dice di lasciar perdere ma il nostro non ci pensa neanche: «Che cosa devo fare, devo star qui a prendere gli insulti?, io me ne vado… che cosa devo fare?, non devo rispondere?». E Santoro: «E allora rispondi, facciamo un dibattito… perdiamo un’ora per spiegare il niente che è successo… perché Travaglio – così la racconta Santoro, seccato, rivolto al pubblico – ha frequentato un magistrato e un uomo di polizia quando non si sapeva che era condannato e un cavolo di niente… ». Questa la chiara spiegazione. Si passa ad altro.
***
Dear Michael,
I reflected on what happened Thursday Annozero. And as it happened in front of 4 million people, do you speak in public form. I start with a sentence of your last night: "Let's talk about facts." The point is just that. You can still talk about the facts on TV? Yes, judging from the outstanding facilities of Formigli, Bertazzoni and Bosetti. No, judging by the so-called debate in the studio, which is no longer (by a good piece) a debate, but a desperate and grueling battle between those who try to describe, analyze, comment on what happens and who is on purpose to prevent us from doing so and compel to talk about other things.
The Curse of the level playing field, due to the curse of Berlusconi, requires the presence of guests symmetrical right and left. And when it comes to politicians, patience: their allergy to the facts is so clear that everybody understands their game.
But when, like the other night, one is confronted journalists, even among registered as journalists, every symmetry is impossible, those "right wing" talk to him and to others - when they do not know that say - pull out my convictions (not there) or my holidays with mafia or mafia expenses (there). On the one hand journalists are normal, like the other night, Gomez and Rangers, who do not discount either the right or the left and on the other trumpeters. That are not right: they are of Berlusconi. Nor do journalists read a script, attend specialized courses where you learn to do the smiley faces and obsessively repeat the same slander.
Instead of challenging the facts you tell, try to disqualify a person. Then, mission accomplished, go to the cashier to collect pocket money. And, if you do not drop enough, they are rebuked or downloaded from the master. Do not have a face and therefore are not afraid of losing it.
Partono avvantaggiati, possono permettersi qualunque cosa. Non hanno alcun obbligo di verità, serietà, coerenza, buonafede, deontologia. Non temono denunce perchè il padrone mette ogni anno a bilancio un fondo spese per risarcire i danni che i suoi sparafucile cagionano a tizio e caio dicendo e scrivendo cose che mai scriverebbero o direbbero se non avessero le spalle coperte. Come diceva Ricucci, che al loro confronto pare Lord Brummel, fanno i froci col culo degli altri.
Sguazzano nella merda e godono a trascinarvi le persone pulite per dimostrare che tutto è merda. E ci tocca pure chiamarli colleghi perchè il nostro Ordine non s’è mai accorto che fanno un altro mestiere. Ci vorrebbe del tempo each time to explain to viewers who are these gentlemen, who sends them, such atrocities perpetrate their "papers", because when it comes to Bertolaso \u200b\u200brespond on my holidays and above all what really happened about my holidays: namely, I have documented on voglioscendere.it have paid the bill to the last penny and have known a Antimafia sergeant before he was arrested and convicted of, breaking any relationship soon emerged that he had made (the two trumpeters instead direct vicedirigono and two editors of the newspapers - Giampaolo Angelucci and Paolo Berlusconi, already arrested two times each, the second affected - and do not form a fold).
But on TV there is no time to explain things calmly. And, as I've got a reputation and I am attached, I can not accept that every Thursday is tarnished by such gentlemen. My friends recommend infischiarmene to respond with a laugh or a shrug. In the early days I could not. Not any more: you do not know the effort I made Thursday to sit there until the end. Perhaps my presence, the climate created by these gentlemen, it is becoming cumbersome and therefore harmful to Annozero. What do I do? I hang around the neck of the receipts and leave the criminal record? I leave the studio to smoke a cigarette every Once slander me? Or have a better idea?
Dear Mark,
frank answer to your letter to me seems to come from too far away. We are different and with different opinions about many things: law, morality, freedom and television. Yet perhaps because of it we can become friends and, for a major chunk of our lives, to fight side by side against censorship. E 'is the only true miracle that Silvio Berlusconi, have woven the events as distant as those of professional and Luttazzi Biagi, Montanelli and Sabina Guzzanti. Yours and mine. I would live in your decision to distance by Annozero with great sadness but not for personal reasons because it would be, first, a wrong done to a very large audience and, secondly, a further retreat of the boundary of the forbidden that now includes nearly all the facts concerning the most burning powerful in Italy.
It would, however, a tragedy or a disaster beyond repair. During my long experience in television so many of my friends and colleagues have chosen or choose to explore new approaches. It 'was always an occasion for all to renew a challenge to broaden the horizons of the lab which we feel still continue to be part of.
today your range is enormous: write every day for the fact (and beyond), you have a blog seguitissimo, have a leading role in Grillo's blog and fill the theater with your show on Tangentopoli. Therefore, you could easily do without Annozero, no longer export to fatigue and stress of combat television where you always feel, wrongly, of having to play all within minutes.
Once, when I was only your books, do not you made any effort to address those same "rogues" that today, however, you seem unacceptable partners. Not Annozero, with its millions of listeners, but a province of any television you seemed a good time is not wasted. Then it was I who invite you to tire less, to a more valuable communication, to put a stop to your generosity, while working to improve the lights, your position on stage, the timing of the story and put you more effectively in the context of program.
course without your outstanding qualities as a writer and storyteller this would not be helped. But it is served. Despite Belpietro, Ghedini or Wolves. They are always the same. You are changed. I do not know if you realize that when you say that about Annozero is a matter of format, you're talking like a member of the Parliamentary Supervisory Commission.
do not know whether you share tips Paolo Flores d'Arcais that seeks to explain when you turn off and turn on the microphones of a guest. A member of Agcom perfect. An apologist of the Berlusconi-thought on the "chicken coop". Just like Furio Colombo and his invectives against the talk-show. D'Arcais Colombo and are convinced that it should reign in the order of discourse (written), of course, for them is not that the news of Minzolini but to report, repute example of a transmission based on the principle of identity and contradiction.
Now, mind you, I like it too Report, and a lot: I think it just incompatibly Annozero with balances imposed by the conflict of interest in the information system. But is not the only possible way to make inquiry, not as it once was the documentary-style BBC. We try to force the compatibility of the cage, out of the sow to lay bare the contradictions of illiberal schedule we are not content to dig a niche alternative. We are ugly, dirty and bad. We collect less support Ballarò but create more critical, more adrenaline, more controversy, more gaps in the Jelly.
So I wanted and still want that, at least for a while 'minutes, you occupy the center stage. Six il simbolo di ciò che il recinto della televisione generalista non vuole più contenere, di tutti coloro che sono stati espulsi e non possono più rientrare. La prefigurazione di un cambiamento possibile. D’altra parte chi è espulso riesce anche a sopravvivere benissimo. Fuori dalla tv generalista l’industria culturale rende ancora possibili profitti importanti per chi produce contenuti forti; ma chi resta è meno libero e chi va via non entra più in contatto con una sterminata periferia, una enorme banlieue culturale nella quale resta confinata una buona metà della popolazione italiana. In questa periferia, almeno qualche volta, Annozero è entrato prepotentemente. Anche grazie a te, e ne vado fiero. E anche grazie a Maurizio Belpietro.
But you think that Maurizio Belpietro - or Porro or Ghedini - they are only paid a price to a level playing field, a law which is spoken without knowing it and nobody takes care seriously, when I represent the void need of writing that makes the transmission unpredictable. Even what happened last Thursday in our study shows that no one can know in advance how things go. We first.
Report has the performance of a film. Annozero looks like a football game, brings into play not only ideas but emotions, convictions, passions, even visceral. When the game gets boring and served the public more unfaithful change channels. And this is why we have to chase the spectator less attached to our programs, sometimes even disappointing fans. The exact opposite of what happens in the theater.
In the past, I enjoyed seeing you demolish arguments aggressive with irony and with surgical precision: now get time. A time that TV, in your opinion, would not be able to give you. How to respond to challenges that are repeated like a litany monotonous and predictable? Five minutes? Half an hour? A whole evening? In your letter could be more explicit in criticizing my run. I believe that you have not why you should add that the list of "wonderful service" to be cut to make room for your needs.
Instead of Bertolaso \u200b\u200bleast we would know everything about labor? And the next time we should have done something if he repeated the same situation? The answer seems like much: the first is your honor, face the truth. We should repeat the disc's conviction for libel imposed only in the first instance, review your criminal record in slow motion, to convince the world the world (including Belpietro) of your moral qualities that our audience does not seem at all into question. In addition, a journalist convicted, you per dire, definitivamente per diffamazione smette di essere un buon giornalista? Penso proprio di no; come Schumacher che, se va una volta fuori pista, non smette per questo di essere un buon pilota.
Hai saputo schivare e anche incassare molti colpi bassi ma questa volta è bastata una banalissima insinuazione di Porro (e non un’aggressione squadristica) per farti perdere il lume della ragione. Hai frequentato un sottufficiale dell’Antimafia prima che venisse condannato per favoreggiamento. Scusa, qual è il problema morale? Quali sconvolgimenti ha creato nella percezione che i nostri ascoltatori hanno di te questo genere di insinuazioni? Nessuno.
Le critiche, even the most absurd part of our work, so as to respect those who think like us, do not insult them, not delegitimize as an interlocutor. And if you have others to attack us, we must answer as you know better than I do, quickly and with the weapons of irony. When I did I did I do wrong.
We are different but both belong to the public. Only the public comes our credibility. So you have the right to propose to the public as you like, in the form of your theatrical performances (without jamming) or, as I hope, in the obstacle course of Annozero. You know I fought with all my strength to include a regular contract and not as an occasional guest in our broadcast. I am proud to say that you are part of the Rai and public service. As should be Sabina Guzzanti, Daniele Luttazzi and many others. Earlier Annozero I was convinced that with our return we took home a major victory against censorship, and soon the world would change. It did not happen, even if in the meantime we have become the first program information.
If television is even worse is not only because of Berlusconi and his "trumpeters" but who would have fought against it and did not and even those who choose to fight thinking they were the only ones with consistency. Knights without blemish and without fear that they want to score at all costs is a difference from the rest of the world, who put their purity and sense of honor before freedom: the law and the rules before freedom, truth above freedom. As you read and sentences are merely a tool essential to the orderly functioning of society.
ask me to put away the abuse. With the experience I'll try to invent something to prevent the use of provocative topics, breaks for art, personal insults. What I can not promise you is the truth.
The profound truth of a person by that name Travaglio, Berlusconi Santoro or not establishing a television program, does not result in carefully drafting the list of good and bad. To those who ask about your blog to define once and for all that is true we have a duty to respond that truth is elusive, contradictory. Truth is a hard won and difficult. For me it is often a face to face. To myself.
Dear Michael,
thank you for your reply frank and affectionate, but I'm afraid of not being able to explain well what I meant. I have nothing to say about your tenure (on television genius you are and I am a beginner) or the format of the broadcast. I simply posed a problem, and I did fit the public because many say that when you stick to arguing about things beyond the theme of the program, change the channel, precisely because of the unpredictability of Annozero turns into some predictability when Busters disrupt the structure of the program following a script always equal to itself.
And this comes from the fact that, in my opinion, the interlocutors that you seem to be "more equal" have changed Belpietro Porro and had always come to discuss the issues of the program and had never been down to personal slander. The other night, the militarization of fronte berlusconiano ha segnato un altro scatto in avanti e io, forse stanco e nervoso per conto mio, ho reagito in quel modo. E’ stato proprio l’avvilimento per quella mia reazione, che ha guastato il programma, a indurmi a scriverti in forma pubblica.
Non certo una richiesta di cambiare format (anche a me piace molto l’inchiesta giornalistica seguita dal tentativo di inchiodare i politici alle loro responsabilità). Né tanto meno una richiesta di censura o di epurazione per questo o quell’interlocutore, che non mi compete, ma soprattutto è lontana mille miglia dal mio pensiero. Io non ritengo “inaccettabile” nessuno, adoro essere contraddetto nel merito, anzi spero always someone to tell me what's wrong or not true what they say: unfortunately the first politicians and journalists now prefer to speak of me and of my vacation, instead of what I say.
If I did like them, every time I remember how much money it costs us Free to public Belpietro or how many buffaloes (the last, on the case Boffo) publishes the Journal. But not because I prefer to stick to the theme of the episode.
On one point, of course, are profoundly different: how to defend our honor. You prefer to do it in a separate head office, dismissing the public with a satirical calunnie che ti vengono rovesciate addosso. Io invece mi prendo tutte le critiche di questo mondo, ma le falsità, le diffamazioni, le calunnie quelle no, non riesco proprio a farmele scivolare addosso: non nutro la tua stessa fiducia nel “pubblico” che saprebbe tutto e riuscirebbe da solo a distinguere ciò che è vero da ciò che è falso. Quando milioni di persone sentono dire che frequento mafiosi, penso che una parte di esse si aspetti una reazione proporzionata alla gravità dell’accusa, e se la reazione non arriva si fanno l’idea che qualcosa di vero ci sia.
Purtroppo non tutti hanno Internet e non conoscono il blog voglioscendere.it dove ho già documentato per tabulas the falsity of the allegations. That's why I said it would take some time to answer. But this time I can not tell you to ask why, in the game of Annozero, I would have to play another, private. Hence my discomfort, I put on paper the other day. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment