E 'legitimacy to the controversy when there is complete powerless to overturn the concept of a level playing field that over the years has been gradually and deliberately misinterpreted to create in this election period by deleting some television programs.
But equal treatment is not associated with any treatment.
In this regard I found this great site written by www.difesadellinformazione.com
a level playing field
Objectivity and completeness are the criteria which should guide the information. They are mentioned in any law that is responsible for regulating the broadcasting sector in an organic way. From L. No 14 April 1975 103, passing through L. August 6, 1990 No 223 ("Law Mother") and L. May 3 2004 No 112 ("Gasparri Law"), up to the D. Lgs. July 31, 2005 No 177 ("Consolidated Broadcasting Law"), these criteria characterize the broadcasting system as a "service paramount interest." And, of course, the full observance of these criteria ensures compliance with the requirement of truth, the cornerstone of freedom of the press.
But in the '90s has made its appearance a concept designed not just to complicate the issue: the concept of a level playing field . As is known, the access of all political actors to radio-TV in conditions of equality in order to ensure that each force represented in Parliament the same opportunity to communicate with the public. A question Postas urgent as a result of the emergence of a macroscopic conflict of interest: that of Silvio Berlusconi. On the one hand, the founder and leader of a political force conspicuously represented in Parliament. Second, owns three national television networks that transmit daily Tg, programs of political communication and in-depth information without being subject to the powers of the Parliamentary Committee of Surveillance, established by Law No 103/1975, which controls only the public broadcaster Rai.
Technically, the concept of a level playing field has nothing to do with freedom of the press, because it is alien to the concept of information. Born in observance of pluralism, to ensure that all political forces equal opportunity to communicate with voters, the level playing field the relationship between political parties and voters, namely political communication. But not that relationship, mediated by the figure of a journalist, between fact and that the community is behind the ' information. "Information" and "political communication" are two opposite realities. The difference is evident both in the subject generator object. With the information, which is generated by the journalist, brings to the attention of the community made a . With the political community, which is generated by the subject political, trying to convince voters of the goodness of your own way of governing the country, announcing a assessment, biased, and as such will diverge from that of the politician belonging to a different area. This is because the purpose of political communication is to inform the viewer, but to direct the voter's choice.
And since there different ways of conceiving the operation of a democratic state, that's trying to convince voters to vote for a political force over another can be logically controlled by a principle of equality in access to media. Consequently, the utility and opportunity of a level playing field in political communication, but its ontological inapplicable to information. There is necessarily done in its uniqueness, there is only one truth. A truth in itself guaranteed by objective information, complete and impartial. The level playing field applied to information ends up misleading the public away from the truth.
The difference between information and communication policy can be seen in various stages of L. No 28/2000, which requires a level playing field of political communication in programs regardless of the time they are transmitted, and provides rules for information the election period. Article. Requires a "level playing field exposition of opinions and political positions, in political forums, debates, round tables, presentation of contradictory policy agendas, against and in interviews and in any other transmission in which the character takes major display reviews and evaluations policies. " But at the same time specifies that the rule does not apply " dissemination of information news programs."
For information programs art. 5 provides rules only for the campaign period. During this period "is may not provide, even indirectly, the voting instructions or express their preferences to vote "directors and conductors must take" appropriate behavior and impartial management of the program, so you do not exercise, which may be covert, influence on free choices of voters. "
E 'then the law to report the same level playing field only to political communication, but merely to prevent the information programs during the election campaign, will be given directions to vote and to emphasize the need for impartial their conductors.
However, it must be said that in practice legislation has imposed a distortion of the concept of information, which led to its assimilation to political communication, with the effect of widening access to the rules of even level playing field for non-electoral period. The main responsibility of this are just the two bodies responsible for ensuring the accuracy of information and respect for level playing field. For Rai, the Parliamentary Commission for general direction and supervision of broadcasting services, for private networks, the Communications Regulatory Authority ("Authority ).
By decision of 18 December 2002 the Supervisory Committee, as well as dictate specific rules for political communication, established art. 11 (under the heading "Information ") that "any director of head shall ensure that the political content of news programs to implement a fair representation of all parliamentary political views ensuring a level playing field in exposure political opinion in the national Parliament and the European Parliament . The meaning is clear. The host of a program of in-depth information, where it relates to facts relevant for policy, is basically obliged to ask politicians of each side, thus delegating the task of informing the public on the management of public affairs to people far from impartial.
By far the worst Measure March 11, 2003 the same Supervisory Commission, Article. 1 states that " All transmissions of information - from news programs of study - must comply with the completeness of the information, the plurality of views and the need for adversarial . What in the name of "pluralism [...] that must be adhered to by the licensee company as a whole and in its every act, and by its internal (divisions, networks and newspapers), and must be reflected in the individual programs evident. "
The trend continued at the level of ordinary law. First, under art. 6, paragraph 1 bed. c) L. No 112/2004 (the "Gasparri law"), then by Art. 7, paragraph 2 bed. c) Legislative Decree no. 177/2005 (the "Consolidated Broadcasting Law"). Both provisions read verbatim: "The discipline of information broadcasting, however, guarantees [...] access to all political actors to the transmission of information and propaganda and electoral politics on an equal footing treatment and fairness. "
For its part, the ' Authority has adopted this rule in 2006, also with regard to non-electoral period, extending the domestic private issuers. The Resolution No. 06.22, after stating that "the business of television news [...] shall ensure [...] access to all political actors to the transmission of information and propaganda in the electoral and political conditions of equal treatment and impartiality "(so faithfully reporting what has already been established by the" Gasparri law "and the Consolidated), art. 1, paragraph 2 °, requires "the balance of admissions " program of news and analysis.
So, while the L. No 28/2000 sets to be linked to programs of information, but only during the election campaign and still never consistent application of a level playing field , under the term of the Law Commission of the Supervisory Board el ' Authority, making a clear forcing of the legislative data, have extended the rules of a level playing field information even in non-electoral period. Objectivity, integrity, impartiality are not enough programs for information. It is always necessary to quote the Supervisory Committee the "strict respect " of the " plurality of viewpoints and the need for adversarial " even on the news, despite the art. 1, paragraph 2, L. No 28/2000 expressly prohibits the application of the programs of political communication " dissemination of information news programs."
now seen in the succession of laws and ordinances, the distortion of the concept of information reaches its climax. You get to apply to news programs (which have the task to bring out the truth ) the patterns of communication policy (where each of the contenders to the public shows its "own" truth), in the name of a pluralism whose meaning is totally misunderstood here.
If in fact the political pluralism, properly understood, wants the broadcasting system and illustrious witnesses objectively the different political realities in the country, is happening here, paradoxically, that the implementation of pluralism, misunderstood, to the detriment of truth. This can not emerge if the information is not forcibly based on objective fact but on opposing interpretations of it that provide parties with conflicting interests . It 's like to think of bringing out the truth in a process based solely on the arguments of the parties' lawyers rather than on evidence.
Among other things, the same L. No 28/2000, still in force, clearly shows how political communication should be concentrated in the election campaign. According to art. 5, paragraph 4, in the period from the convening of the electoral meetings at the close of voting, "in information broadcasts within the responsibility of a specific news organization [...] the presence of candidates, representatives of political parties and movements, Members of the Government, the Executive and Regional Councils and Local Government should be limited only to the need to ensure consistency and impartiality of information , attendance strictly prohibited "in all other transmissions . This means that the television appearances during the election campaign of politicians to be seen primarily in the interests of political communication.
From the latter rule is clear that the law gives priority to communication policy with respect to information only during the election campaign. In non-electoral period, the information must prevail over political communication. The conclusion is logical. In non-electoral period, the community should be fully informed about the facts, the results of the policy. During the campaign, however, must give themselves to each political force able to "do its own budget" of what happened and learn from the community through information, and try to convince the electorate to "draw conclusions" from the assessments of each political force.
from all this that any measures taken by the bodies responsible for monitoring the broadcasting system, where assimilate the information, anyway, political communication, are considered illegal . And the laws contained in the "Gasparri" and Consolidation Act, insofar as imposing, and always, the application information of a level playing field, so as to assimilate it to political communication, are in a strong odor of unconstitutionality to violation of Art. The first 21 of the Constitution should be rejected and countered before the Tar in the application of sanctions by the supervisory bodies and the latter, waiting and hoping for a correction of the Constitutional Court, should be at least interpreted in a manner that protects the possible freedom of information, denying the very assimilation of information to political communication.
0 comments:
Post a Comment