search burger
search ×

Fedez case: why it's absolutely inappropriate to talk about censorship

The opinion of a former RAI author

By Gianfranco Gatta

What leaves me astonished on the case / non-case Fedez is the debate and the political controversies that have been instrumentally created for a couple of days.

Here I have to make a couple of premises: I am not a lover of politically correct, sometimes I even find it racist, almost always stupid and absolutely ungrammatical and cacophonous in the declination of genre.

For example, declining Minister for Women is very reminiscent of a dialectal jargon. Pio and Amedeo, Checco Zalone, personally do not make me laugh but in their texts I do not find anything offensive because they have a depth of meaning that go beyond the words said.

I remember a Sanremo, I believe that of Morandi, where Celentano, the very Catholic Celentano, takes the stage and uses a panegyric of words also made up of blasphemy to exalt the virtues of Jesus; who was sitting next to me catches the blasphemous words and is indignant with fury, I point out that the periphrasis is serving to exalt the work of Christ and then it calms down. Duration of the scene? Less than twenty seconds!

The second premise concerns the case / non case Fedez: I don't give a damn.

Why do I call it case / not case? Because Fedez took the stage on May 1st, Labor Day and freely said what he intended to say, so no censorship.

Visualizza questo post su Instagram

Un post condiviso da FEDEZ (@fedez)

The thing that angers me is this instrumental attack, through the mystification of the facts, against Rai on the eve of the renewal of the offices. I would not want poor Fedez, in the end, to turn out to be “the useful idiot” of the whole affair.

Let's rewind the tape.

There is a video and I already find this to say the least anomalous, where you can see Fedez getting angry with the interlocutor and reading lousy phrases uttered by several members of the League.

You hear the interlocutor, embarrassed and overwhelmed by the singer's vehemence, trying to explain the context of the program; shortly after, the voice of the Deputy Director is heard intruding, in a totally inappropriate way in terms of timing and methods, with the mistaken belief that her sole qualification can be an element of mediation; it lasts a blink of an eye, leaves the field immediately without uttering anything decisive.

Visualizza questo post su Instagram

Un post condiviso da Trash Italiano (@trash_italiano)

A confused management, in the end wrong.

Here the editorial line is confused with censorship and the line is not thin, there is a chasm.

I know the author, a decent person, shy and a phenomenon in compiling the script of a program. Of course I also know the Deputy Director and with all my affection, since she is a long-time journalist, I don't think she is up to dealing with artists. It takes a lot of experience and above all a lot of patience.

For more than thirty years I worked for Rai as a director and author and I know all the “tricks” of communication well. I could mention “Blade Runner” but I'll spare you!

I can tell you what I would have said if I had found myself in the condition of a colleague: “Dear Fedez, you are an artist and you are free to go on stage and say what you want but I have an obligation, since I am the author of the program, to tell you that your monologue is out of context, as would a monologue on whaling and dolphin hunting by the Japanese. The LaborDay offers so many social mines ranging from child labor, to deaths at work, from gender inequality to illegal hiring and much more. If you want, choose the one you like best and if it helps, I'll write the text in a couple of hours. Then do as you see fit”.

And Fedez rightly did what he thought best.

However, this is called an editorial line to which an author has the ethical and legal obligation to abide by!

Censorship is quite another thing. First of all, it is never direct, it is devious, it is creeping, it is a “black hand” that isolates you and accompanies you to the door. Isolate Paolo Rossi, Daniele Luttazzi, force Giovanni Floris and Massimo Giletti himself to migrate to other networks. Intimating Biagi to leave his space, among other things very successful; reduce to speck what could become a genius of television: Piero Chiambretti. I could go on for another five folders.

I find that self-censorship is even more devastating and this affects the whole world of information, not just Rai. Concealing information and facts to please this or that is abhorrent; minimizing, concealing, mystifying for personal interest is criminal. Pay attention to it, apart from the political TV theater, Black Chronicle and Gossip are the major news topics; investigative journalism has practically disappeared.

Ultimately there is a consideration to be made. I've heard so many pundits rant that some political leaders fear influencers who have millions of followers and repeat it like a mantra. It is a dangerous game, one that would be worth self-censorship about. If the stability of the institutions began to depend on the mood of a dozen influencers, Draghi would not care, democracy would be at great risk.