In the field of communications, the Authority operates with a plurality of competence and institutional objectives, which range from the defence of man’s fundamental rights (such as the liberty of expression and the right to information), to the protection of the liberty of economic negotiation – competition – until arriving at more particular guarantees, but certainly not less important (protection of minors and disabled citizens). In this ambit, we operate on all of the subjects, but with varying instruments. In fact, one thing is the general intervention to protect the competition and pluralism which is directed to all the major operators, public and private, another thing is that of monitoring and orientation of the obligations of ‘public service’ which, obviously, concern only the society responsible for these tasks. Finally, with regard to the sectors of our competence, intervention is at 360°, even though it is undeniable that the instruments at our disposal are much more effective for the traditional means of communication (radio and television, in particular), but less, much less effective for the new media (Internet), to which are applied, above all, general duties of protection of the fundamental rights of man (such as the dignity of a person).

Actually, the evaluation that I am doing in this period is that – leaving aside the merit of each single law, in Italy, but also more generally in Europe – there exists an excessively fragmented set of regulations. Too many laws and, on top of this, they are not coordinated; too many instruments; too many objectives. We do not have jurisdiction which goes from the protection of the pluralism to the modalities of presentation of the surveys on the means of information – an authentic mare magnum – brought about, over time, by the accumulation of legislative interventions, also disassociated one from another. It seems to me that one must concentrate on a few, great objectives that the Country wants to reach and then provide the Authority with the necessary instruments to obtain these ends.

For the last ten years, the communications system has been in continual change. First, the advent of the new transmission platforms (from satellite to earth digital and also the mobile television); then the advent of Internet in its various waves: the first generation made, above all, of new instruments of communication P2P (e-mail, VOIP, instant messaging), the second based on new ways of ‘one to many’ communication (from the chat to the ‘user generated contents’ up to the arrival of social network sites). It is difficult to make forecasts in this context: only a few years ago, who would have hypothesized the advent of the You Tube or the Face book? It is for this reason that, more than the convergence, the concept of Openness is affirmed. The first notion is tied to the idea of mature sectors or, however, the parameters of which are already delineated, which are founded with the passage of time, and give place to (although new) a predictable market outcome. The second regards a process in which the new transmission platforms – in the first place, Internet – become promoters of an open evolution of the system of communication. It is not by chance that modern communication has been transformed more by the Web TV (from You Tube on) than by the IP TV (or rather by the convergence between traditional TV and telecommunication networks).

First and foremost, I would say, less politics. It is evident that what has put a bridle on the RAI has been a network of political powers, which has rendered the path difficult: moreover, in a system which, as I said, is in continual evolution. In this sense, it is necessary to provide the ‘public service’ Society with a governance, that is, a more streamlined, less bureaucratic decisional system and, as a consequence, able to take the right decisions at the right time. Only in this way can the Public carry out its important complementary action to the role of the market. Otherwise, the risk is run of depriving this mission and, therefore, before long, of eliminating in nuce the motivations implied in the existence of the ‘public service’ and, therefore, to its financing.

The United Kingdom is, certainly, a good model of ‘public service’, which I, myself, have more than once cited in my Reports. It is necessary, nevertheless, to sink the foreign experience into our system. In fact, one should not think that what functions abroad, will automatically, function in Italy; here, in our Country, it might be necessary to fix more firm points than those indispensable in contexts more accustomed to an efficient utilization of the public amenities.

It is for this reason that we undertook a work of moral suasion which lasted a good 18 months, during which time we sat down at a table with the operators, the Order of the journalists and the Federation of the press. The result is that, for the first time in Italy, on the 21st of last May, a Code of self-regulation on the representation of judicial affairs for radio and television transmission. The Code finds its foundation in the rights – guaranteed by the Constitution – of freedom of expression of thought, on the one hand, and the respect of the rights of the individual, on the other, recognizing the necessity of full realization of the rights of the press by the operators of information (which is, naturally, the other side of the right of the citizen to be informed) but, at the same time, the mandatory duty of respecting, in the exercise of this informative function, the rights to dignity, honourableness and privacy of the individual.

As I have said, I couldn’t agree more: the enquiry is the very foundation of the journalistic action. On the contrary, another thing is a certain kind of delving that suggests voyeurism more than an enquiry, or the imitation of the trial on TV.
It is for this reason that we have fixed certain firm points, among which are:
a) clear and transparent representation of the differences
between documentation and representation, between unbiased
description of facts and journalistic comment, between person under investigation, the defendant and the convicted, between public prosecutor and judge, between accusation and defence, between the definitive and non-definitive character of the measures and decisions in the development of the phases and degrees of the proceedings and the judgements;
b) the adoption of expressive modality and communicative techniques that allow the television viewer and adequate comprehension of the matter, through the representation and illustration of the different positions of the parties in dispute, keeping judiciously in mind the divulgence and explicative effect of the television which, by increasing the dialectics, can run the risk of altering the perception of the facts;
c) the respect of the principle of the court cross examination and debate ensuring the presence and the equal opportunity in the dialectical confrontation between the subjects who sustain opposite theories – in any event different from the parties who face each other in the trial – and respecting the principle of good faith and continence in the correct reconstruction of the events;
d) The obligation of not revealing sensitive data or data which could harm the privacy, the dignity and the decorum of others and, particularly, of the victim or of other subjects who are not under investigation, the diffusion of which is inappropriate to satisfy any specific public interest. No, to the mediatic pillory.

Satire has regulations and, every time intervention is made, I am always afraid that it goes too far: is it better to run the risk of a conformism of the satire (which is obviously an oxymoron) or that of having some cartoon or a somewhat strained caricature? In a mature democracy, I would be oriented to assume the second risk and not the first.

In reality, the ‘public service’ is becoming more and more audiovisual and less television. In the sense that the mission of ‘public service’ concerns tasks of information, diffusion of the cultural patrimony, quality of the programmes, protection of minors etc., which must be transmitted not only through the television platform, but more generally, through all the major means of communication (radio, TV. Internet) and by means of a multiplicity of transmission platforms ( air, satellite, telecommunication networks). Returning to the example which you previously made, this is the task which has been undertaken by the BBC, in the United Kingdom, which broadcasts its contents through a multiplicity of means and apparatuses. This is also the task on which we are seeking to orientate the mission of the RAI in Italy. Finally, as far as the informatics formation of the new (and I must say, also the old) generations, I think this is an essential task of an economically advanced State. Nevertheless, this function does not relate to the ‘public service’ – as it is technically understood – but rather more to the general educative mission of a modern State

Yes, I agree. You see, for years, a new overall organization of all the independent authorities has been spoken of, which would give account of the changes that have occurred in the structure of the State, in itscentral and local articulations, as well as in the evolution of the institutional and European regulations context. Nevertheless, notwithstanding many bills on the matter have been put forward, in the past – some extremely meritorious – a necessary transversal majority to approve such reform has always been lacking.

In a certain sense, the structure of our Authority and Organization that, with the passage of time, have been established have gone ahead of the times. The Authority, in fact, operates on the territory, in different matters (from the controversies between the managers of communication and users of the local radio-television monitoring), through the Regional Committees for the Communications (the CoReCom), which are egitimate functional bodies of the AGCOM. Under my Presidency, in fact, we have implemented a decided and meaningful policy of decentralization to the CoReCom of all those functions on which protection on the territory is necessary and a dextrous and prompt intervention. But be careful: for many other matters (such as, for example, the regulation of the networks that you cited) prescribed regulations and national vigilance are necessary, otherwise, there is the risk of going towards a chaos of localism, besides being unconventional with respect to the process of strong harmonization of the rules and procedures which are coming about, at a European level, for the system of communications.