Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: The Guardian e Travaglio

Ecco l'articolo di John Hopper sul Guardian
Compromised by compromise
John Hooper
May 13, 2008 1:30 PM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_hooper/2008/05/compromised_by_compromise.html
It hasn't taken long for the effects of Silvio Berlusconi's victory to be
felt on the Italian media. On Sunday, the presenter of a current affairs
talk show stood before the cameras of the RAI, Italy's public broadcaster,
and asked the nation for forgiveness.
"[Giving] offence is not my style," Fabio Fazio told viewers. "So, when
that happens, I can only apologise."
It was a scene worthy of the cultural revolution.
Fazio was referring to an episode the night before, which occurred while he
was interviewing a fellow journalist, Marco Travaglio.
One of Berlusconi's first appointments on taking office was that of Senate
speaker. This is a key job in Italy because the occupant is second in
precedence only to the President of the Republic. If the latter dies - and
the present incumbent, Giorgio Napolitano, is 82 years old - then the
speaker of the Senate becomes head of state.
Berlusconi's choice for this illustrious post is Renato Schifani, a
Sicilian lawyer. Travaglio wondered out loud why none of the mainstream
newspapers had remarked on the fact that Schifani had had "friendships with
Mafiosi".
There was, inevitably, uproar from the right. One of Berlusconi's ministers
spoke of the "shameful ambushing" of the new speaker. A government
backbencher said (revealingly) that the prime minister should ban Travaglio
from RAI. There were suggestions that the journalist was part of a
conspiracy.
But what none of Schifani's friends said was that the comment was
inaccurate. There are, in fact, two controversial areas in the new Senate
speaker's past, and they have been looked at in two recent books, one of
them co-authored by Travaglio.
The books claim that, in the 1980s, Schifani was a partner in a firm in
which his fellow partners included two men later convicted of Mafia
offences. One was a full-blown "godfather", of the town of Villabate. In
the 1990s, the future Senate speaker won a contract to advise the local
authority there at a time when it was in the grip of Cosa Nostra. The town
council was subsequently disbanded because it was so thoroughly infiltrated
by the mob.
Now, it needs to be stressed that Schifani has never been investigated for
any Mafia-related offence, much less tried. In both instances, the link to
Cosa Nostra of his business partners and the local authority respectively
came to light only after his own involvement with them. There is no reason
to suppose he was aware during his dealings with them of their shady
connections.
But it would nevertheless seem fair to question his judgment, especially
since he has just accepted such a high office. In many countries, I
imagine, the new speaker would have been invited to the next edition of the
programme to explain how he got mixed up with such people. Instead, the RAI
apologised for offending him.
Schifani, for his part, said Travaglio's accusation was based on
"inconsistent or manipulated facts, not even worthy of generating
suspicions", adding that "someone wants to undermine the dialogue between
the government and the opposition." This hints at another aspect of this
bizarre tale.
You might have thought that Berlusconi's centre-left opponents would leap
at an opportunity to embarrass the new prime minister and his team. Not a
bit of it. With the single exception of a former anti-corruption
prosecutor, Antonio Di Pietro, they have sided with Schifani against
Travaglio. The leader of the centre left in the Senate said the
journalist's words were "unacceptable" and deplored the fact that Schifani
had not been present to refute the charges.
But then the opposition, not for the first time in Italy's recent history,
is hoping to cut a deal with Berlusconi. It is hoping to get him to agree
to a series of reforms, including electoral reform, which it believes are
vital to the nation's future. So it doesn't want to do anything that might
upset or - to use Fabio Fazio's word - "offend" Italy's new prime minister.
We have been here before. In the late 1990s, when the left was in
government, some of its leaders thought they could reach an agreement with
Berlusconi on constitutional change. But the negotiations became so
protracted and complicated, and Berlusconi's collaboration was thought to
be so important, that the left forgot to deliver on its undertaking to pass
a law regulating the conflicts of interest between his roles as TV mogul
and political leader. In the end, the constitutional change was never made.
And Berlusconi returned to power with his media empire intact.
You might have imagined they had learnt something from that.

come gli altri paesi guardano all'italia
Is Italy still a democracy?
Martin Jacques
April 16, 2008 3:30 PM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/martin_jacques/2008/04/is_italy_still_a_democracy.html
The emergence of Silvio Berlusconi as the dominant political figure in
Italy is the single most depressing event in Europe over the last decade.
His role as political leader and the country's most powerful media tycoon
have brought into question to what extent Italy can be described as a
democracy. True, Berlusconi has been elected via the ballot box, but when
he controls all the major private TV channels and has reshaped the state's
channels in his own image, while also owning several newspapers, then the
dice are hugely loaded in his favour.
Democracy is not just a matter of an individual casting a vote: it also
depends on the ability of the individual voter to access the different
positions on offer in a relatively objective and equal way. That has
palpably not been the case in Italy since 1994. Democracy depends on a
separation of economic and political power. The growth of lobby interests
in the United States has significantly weakened that separation. So has the
rise of the rich as the main funders of Britain's two main parties. But the
degeneration in these cases is on nothing like the same scale as Italy.
One is reminded in the Italian case of how recent - and fragile - the
democratic system still is. Between the wars, it fell victim to the rise of
Mussolini and the fascists. Even after 1945, the political system was a
peculiar beast: in effect, half-democratic and half-authoritarian, with
only the Christian Democrats allowed to govern, and the left permanently
excluded from government. Berlusconi lies in a tradition where democracy
has always had what might be described as a contingent, even shadowy
existence. Nothing is ever quite as it seems: whether it is the role of the
mafia, the security services, or, even during the cold war, western
intelligence. (Remember the murder of Aldo Moro, or Roberto Calvi, or the
bombing of Bologna station: decades on, we remain none the wiser about who
was really responsible.)
Berlusconi is a product of this tradition - he bears some of the
characteristics of Mussolini - but he is also distinctive, palpably a man
of his time, even if he reflects its very worst aspects. Essentially, what
Berlusconi represents is the conquest and occupation of the state by
private interests. It is the underlying weakness and lack of legitimacy of
the Italian state in the popular mind that makes this possible.
Italians support Berlusconi not despite but because he uses the state for
his own personal ends. He sees the state in same way as many Italians view
it: as something to be used and manipulated for their own private
interests. Over a century after unification, Italy has failed to create a
state that the people regard as legitimate and representative. Or, to put
it another way, the Italian state is neither a rogue state, nor a failed
state, but a dysfunctional state.
It was impossible for the post-war system to create a legitimate state
because it was bifurcated between left and right. But the end of the cold
war, alas, has failed to offer any solution to this ongoing crisis of the
Italian polity. On the contrary, the democratic system has been the subject
of a far more serious atrophy, corrosion and degeneration.
Meanwhile, the country, whoever is in power, now seems incapable of
economic growth and singularly unable to tackle any of its increasingly
serious problems. Berlusconi, in the light of his two previous terms, is
incapable of resolving the crisis. The left appears too weak, both
politically and electorally. How long will this impasse continue? And what
might happen next? One fears for Italy's future.

 come gli altri paesi guardano all'italia
Un pezzo sulla paginadelle opinioni esterne, e a titolo personale, del 
Guardian mi sembra ancora un po' scarsa, per dare la linea dell'opinione 
pubblica inernazionale.
Pp
-- 
Il dubbio č il padre della pigrizia [shadal]

 pubblica inernazionale.
sono 15 anni che ripetono un po' tutti le stesse cose, fuori d'Italia
non funziona come da noi che la propaganda del nano ripete le stesse
balle 1000 volte tutti i giorni...scrivono una volta che l'Italia non
è una democrazia, lo ripetono alle elezioni, poi basta...magari
parleranno diffusamente dell'Italia quando il nano finirà in galera,
magari dopo aver ammesso di aver preso i soldi dalla mafia per i suoi
investimenti, o parlerà di come gli amici piduisti l'hanno finanziato
a fondo perduto (MPS in testa). Fino ad allora è tutto già scritto..

 Pp
L'articolo è di Martin Jacques un columnist del Guardian e non solo.
Martin Jacques is a writer and broadcaster. He is writing a book on the
rise of China. During the last year he has been a visiting professor at
Renmin University, Beijing, Aichi University, Nagoya and Ritsumeikan
University, Kyoto. He is presently a visiting senior fellow at the National
University of Singapore. He is also a visiting research fellow at the Asia
Research Centre, London School of Economics. He was editor of Marxism Today
from 1977-1991 and deputy editor of the Independent from 1994-96. He is
also a former Sunday Times and Times columnist. He co-edited the book The
Forward March of Labour Halted? and co-edited and co-wrote The Politics of
Thatcherism and New Times. He was a co-founder the thinktank Demos. He is a
columnist for the Guardian.

 L'articolo è di Martin Jacques un columnist 
E' sulla pagina "comment is free".
Interventi personali che non impegnano il giornale.
Non che abbia una particolare venerazione per linea del Guardian, ma 
questo intevento non ha nemmeno quello status.
Pp
-- 
Il dubbio è il padre della pigrizia [shadal]

 Non che abbia una particolare venerazione per linea del Guardian
ma com'è che a te fa schifo la stampa di sinistra di qualsiasi paese
mentre stravedi per gli ultrà di destra?

 questo intevento non ha nemmeno quello status.
In che senso "non impegnano" il giornale? si tratta di uno spazio libero,
ma si trova comunque sul sito del Guardian, scritto da giornalisti del
Guardian... e poiché oltrAlpi la transizione carta stampata - web è molto
più avanti che da noi, quell'articolo ha notevole visibilità, così come chi
lo scrive mette in gioco il suo nome e la sua reputazione.
E poiché a scriverlo non è il lettore blogger del giornale, ma un
opinionist, è giusto tenerne conto.
E il Guardian non è certo un giornale leggerino con la cd. "sinistra"
Comunque era solo un esempio dei tanti articoli in tono che si possono
leggere sulla stampa internazionale.
S.

 ma com'è che a te fa schifo la stampa di sinistra di qualsiasi paese
Premessa sbagliata.


 In che senso "non impegnano" il giornale? 
Non hai molta dimestichezza con la stampa, vedo.
Pazienza.
Pp
-- 
Il dubbio č il padre della pigrizia [shadal]

 Pazienza.
direi tu
pazienza
S.

 Premessa sbagliata.
sono fatti, non pugnette, caro il mio "ferrara è il migliore
giornalista italiano"

 direi tu
Dici un'altra cazzata.


 Interventi personali che non impegnano il giornale.
a proposito
"comment is free" significa che i lettori possono commentare gli
articoli... ma immagino che tu abbia capito male
S.

 giornalista italiano"
Da dove hai virgolettato?


 Dici un'altra cazzata.
se lo dici tu, che non sai nemmeno chi sia l'autore... ne sono convinto
S.

 "comment is free" significa che 
Che è un aggregatore di blog. La versione telematica dello spazio Op-Ed.


 se lo dici tu
Chi altro dovrebbe dirlo, fragolino?
Impara cos'è un blog, cos'è un Op-Ed, poi ne riparliamo.
Pp
-- 
Il dubbio è il padre della pigrizia [shadal]

 Pp
Leggiti qui espertone della domenica
"
Comment is free is the online home of Guardian, Observer print and web-only
comment. We carry the main comment articles and editorials from both
newspapers and also host a collective group web-only blog with
contributions from a wide range of commentators from many walks of life.
Our aim is to host an open-ended space for debate, dispute, argument and
agreement in which users are able to comment on everything they read.
The blog is updated regularly through the day and exists to provide instant
commentary on current events while exploring the main preoccupations of a
progressive, liberal newspaper.
Registered readers are invited to comment on any article, providing they
read and abide by our Community Standards and Participation Guidelines.
Comments are post-moderated but in order to keep the standard of debate as
high as possible our moderators will intervene swiftly if users contravene
the guidelines.
Our terms and conditions are here.
The editors:
Georgina Henry is executive editor, comment, with overall responsibility
for paper and web comment.
Comment is free (the blog): Matt Seaton, editor; Ros Taylor, deputy editor;
Brian Whitaker, commissioning editor; Theresa Malone, chief sub; Jessica
Reed, editorial assistant.
Guardian comment (paper): Toby Manhire, editor (and associate editor Cif);
Libby Brooks and Gwyn Topham, deputy editors; Andrew Tod, production
editor.
Observer comment (paper): Ruaridh Nicoll, editor.
Comment is free America: Richard Adams, editor; Alexander Belenky, deputy
editor.
"
e se non ci arrivi ti sottolineo questo
"
Georgina Henry is executive editor, comment, with overall responsibility
for paper and web comment.
"

 Impara cos'è un blog, cos'è un Op-Ed, poi ne riparliamo.
LOL
Georgina Henry is executive editor, comment, with overall responsibility
for paper and web comment.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/about.html

 Pp
LOL
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/about.html

 The blog 
2)  Blog.
Ora cerca di chiarirti il significato di questi due concetti.


 
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/about.html
=======
 > Our aim is to host an open-ended space
1) Op-Ed
 > The blog
2)  Blog.
=========
Grazie. Ora, se possibile, informati.


 questo intevento non ha nemmeno quello status.
Il fatto che Jacques sia uno dei fondatori di Demos significa che
quell'articolo non sarà rappresentativo della linea del Guardian, ma
sicuramente è vicino a quella del governo inglese...

 Ora cerca di chiarirti il significato di questi due concetti.
ho l'impressione che non lo capisca tu il senso.
Guarda che significa che gli utenti-lettori possono commentare le
notizie... sai che cos'è un blog almeno?
e non che gli articoli non fanno parte di un prodotto editoriale, con tanto
di responsabile LEGALE del Guardian
dai per piacere...
è probabile anzi che quell'articolo fosse stato anche pubblicato sulla
versione cartacea, come indicato nella pagina che non hai letto
S.

 Grazie. Ora, se possibile, informati.
ma per piacere
S.

Il giorno Fri, 16 May 2008 08:30:48 -0700 (PDT), un uomo o donna chiamato/a
eugenio ebbe il coraggio di scrivere:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/martinjacques



In alternativa, impara a perdere.


 In alternativa, impara a perdere.
ora sei ridicolo
contento te
S.

 ora sei ridicolo
Ci vuoi la soda, nel Mint Juleps?
Pp
-- 
Il dubbio č il padre della pigrizia [shadal]

 Ci vuoi la soda, nel Mint Juleps?
abbi pietà, Sokar, è un povero etilista...

 abbi pietŕ, Sokar, č un povero etilista...
Tu sei ancora piccolo.


 Ci vuoi la soda, nel Mint Juleps?
Su vai a scrivere sul sito del Guardian, tanto possono scrivere cani e
porci senza alcun filtro editoriale... hai possibilità anche tu, così
magari capisci che cos'è un blog.
S.

 porci senza alcun filtro editoriale... 
Mi sa che devi ancora approfondire i concetti di Op-Ed e di blog.
Ci riuscirai meglio, se la smetti di rodere.


 sicuramente è vicino a quella del governo inglese...
Secondo le ultime elezioni, non è rappresentativo <g>.
Pp
-- 
Il dubbio è il padre della pigrizia [shadal]

 Ci riuscirai meglio, se la smetti di rodere.
senti, non è che devi ribadire ogni volta la tua profonda ignoranza,
soprattutto a quanto pare della rete internet.
EDITORE
Guardian Unlimited
119 Farringdon Road
London EC1R 3ER
United Kingdom
Direttore e responsabile editoriale e legale
Georgina Henry
Prodotto editoriale
Guardian Unlimited
Autore
Martin Jacques
Articolo
Is Italy a democracy?
-------
evidentemente secondo te i Blog sono dei sitarelli personali e non dei
prodotti editoriali.
comunque basta qui, visto che insisti a dire cazzate, ti lascio perdere
S.

 Guardian Unlimited
ovviamente intendevo 
Comment is free...

 s
Niente, non capisce.


 Niente, non capisce.
se tu affermi che l'articolo NON IMPEGNA il Guardian, che è l'editore del
prodotto editoriale Comment is free... vuol dire che stai dicendo delle
cazzate.
Invece di ripetere le stesse tre parole in croce, magari riesci anche ad
argomentare la tua arguzia.
Se un articolista di Comment is free - Guardian Unlimited, scrive che i
labour sono una banda di pedofili, secondo la tua arguzia, quell'articolo
"non impegna" l'editor e l'editore?
Se c'è un editor, significa che c'è una linea editoriale ed un responsabile
editoriale, e questo SIGNIFICA che l'editore è "impegnato".
Quindi o impari a scrivere quello che vuoi dire, o evita di scrivere
cazzate e poi rispondere in modo ossessivo-compulsivo alle osservazioni.
S.

 se
Dai sokar, ritrova una dignità.
E cerca di capire cos'è uno spazio Op-Ed.
Su
Pp
-- 
Il dubbio è il padre della pigrizia [shadal]

 E cerca di capire cos'è uno spazio Op-Ed.
LOL
detto da uno che confonde "open-ended" (aperto agli utenti) con "Op-Ed"
(opposite editorial), dimostri un'ignoranza colossale.
guarda, faresti meglio a stare zitto.
ok, ci sei e non ci fai
S.

 guarda, faresti meglio a stare zitto.
dovrebbe avere il senso del ridicolo.

 d
Mah.


 wrote:
[...]
Carucci questi due animalini.
Come si chiamano...
Ah, si. Lamer.
Pp
-- 
Il dubbio č il padre della pigrizia [shadal]

 Come si chiamano...
eh, la memoria che se ne va insiema alla vodka...