Trascrizione video per non udenti :
"Buongiorno a tutti. Iniziamo questo appuntamento settimanale. Sono un po' inesperto in questa materia e quindi spero che la cosa venga bene, ma verrà meglio nelle prossime settimane. Io vorrei sfogliare con voi i giornali della settimana per mostrare quali sono i problemi che affliggono l'informazione dei quali tutti noi, tutti voi credo, siamo molto preoccupati. Parto da un caso che mi ha coinvolto ma che, in realtà, non è il mio caso: si chiama "caso Schifani" anche se molti l'hanno chiamato "caso Travaglio". Dieci giorni fa sono stato da Fabio Fazio a raccontare alcune cose già presenti in alcuni libri mai querelati e in alcuni articoli querelati da Schifani che però ha perso la causa perché un giudice ha stabilito che tutto quello che aveva scritto di lui l'Espresso era sostanzialmente vero, non c'era alcuna diffamazione. Quella sera, come già mi era capitato sette anni fa quando ero andato a presentare un altro libro nelle stesse identiche condizioni da Daniele Luttazzi, è intervenuta la prima gallina che fa l'uovo, sempre in questi casi, cioè l'allora ministro e ora capogruppo del Popolo della Libertà provvisoria Maurizio Gasparri il quale ha dichiarato che ci sarebbero state delle conseguenze politiche. Per un attimo mi sono domandato "fanno dimettere Schifani?", in realtà volevano far dimettere me da non so cosa e far cacciare tutti i capi possibili e immaginabili della Rai come se io avessi chiesto il permesso o addirittura avessi ricevuto ordini dai capi della Rai, figuriamoci, per dire quelle cose. Mi ha molto colpito il fatto che tra i più solerti a intervenire contro il fatto che avessi raccontato una cosa vera, documentata e già nota, c'è stato il direttore di Rai3 Paolo Ruffini, già noto per aver collaborato alla chiusura del programma di Sabina Guzzanti "Raiot" - anche lì perchè si dicevano troppe cose vere tutte insieme. Ha dichiarato che ho "gratuitamente offeso la seconda carica dello Stato". Effettivamente era gratis, perché nessuno mi ha pagato per farlo. In realtà, Ruffini ha un conflitto di interessi quando parla di Schifani. Forse nessuno, o pochi, lo sanno ma Paolo Ruffini non è [solo] omonimo dell'ex ministro democristiano e dell'ex Cardinale di una certa Palermo anni Settanta: è il figlio del ministro e il nipote del Cardinale. Ma di più: la mamma del direttore di Rai3 Ruffini è la sorella dell'On. La Loggia che non è omonimo dell'attuale parlamentare di Forza Italia (che era socio di Schifani e di Nino Mandalà, poi condannato per mafia, nella famosa società Siculabroker tra la fine degli anni Settanta e la fine degli anni Ottanta): è proprio lui! Praticamente, Ruffini è il nipote di La Loggia. Quindi, le storie della Siculabroker gli basterebbe fare un giro di opinioni in famiglia per conoscerle...
E quando afferma che io non posso raccontarle in televisione... diciamo che sta dicendo che non dovrei rinvangare certe storie di famiglia. Della sua famiglia. Si chiama conflitto di interessi, anche se in questo caso Berlusconi non c'entra, ma nessuno l'ha fatto notare. Pazienza! Meglio sapere con chi si ha a che fare, chi parla e chi dirige la rete progressista della Rai; poi ci sono anche le reti dirette dal centrodestra. A quel punto cos'è successo? Nessuno ha chiesto a Schifani conto e ragione di quello che è nei documenti ma, in compenso, hanno cominciato a chiedere conto a me di una serie di cose che peraltro non ho mai fatto. Per esempio, l'ottimo giornalista di "Repubblica" D'Avanzo ha addirittura insinuato in un articolo mellifluo che io mi fossi fatto pagare le vacanze estive del 2002 o del 2003 da un signore che è stato poi condannato per mafia e che io non ho mai visto, né conosciuto, né sentito nominare. Poi, però, ha scritto "chi potrebbe credere a questa cosa?". Forse è il primo caso di un giornalista che nella riga sopra scrive una notizia e in quella sotto "ma nessuno ci crede!". Ma se nessuno ci crede perché la scrivi? Perché non la verifichi? Perché non fai il tuo mestiere? Pazienza, ma questo ha portato a parlare di me e delle mie vacanze invece di parlare delle società e delle consulenze urbanistiche del presidente del Senato. Consulenze urbanistiche che, guarda caso, sono state commissionate a Schifani dal comune di Villabate, uno dei comuni più infiltrati dalla mafia, e proprio da quel Nino Mandalà che proprio quindici-vent'anni prima sedeva nella stessa società di brokeraggio con Schifani e La Loggia. Comune che poi è stato sciolto due volte per mafia, per cui Schifani non ha potuto portare a termine il suo lavoro a proposito del Piano Regolatore che secondo il presidente del Consiglio Comunale di Villabate, Francesco Campanella attualmente in carcere e pentito, Schifani e La Loggia avevano concordato direttamente con il boss. Altra lezione di D'Avanzo: come fai ad accusare della gente di aver avuto rapporti, anche d'affari, [con queste persone] prima della loro incriminazione e della loro condanna? Uno non diventa mafioso il giorno in cui lo condannano per mafia o lo arrestano. Di solito è mafioso fin dalla più tenera età, è difficile la vocazione adulta nella mafia. Ti reclutano da giovane. Chi sta a Palermo e si mette in società con certe persone dovrebbe prima informarsi di chi siano. Chi accetta consulenze da un comune pesantemente infiltrato dalla mafia non può dire "non lo sapevo". Prima di lavorare in certi ambienti devi prendere informazioni, e su Mandalà le informazioni in loco erano piuttosto copiose. I magistrati, quando arrivano, sono sempre gli ultimi a sapere, un po' come i cornuti. Negli ambienti politici - lo diceva già Paolo Borsellino ma anche Giuseppe Aiala nel suo ultimo libro - chi ha certi rapporti lo si viene a sapere ben prima che la magistratura lo possa mettere nero su bianco. Altrimenti oggi dovremmo dire che Al Capone non era un mafioso. Al Capone non è mai stato condannato per mafia ma solo per evasione fiscale. Dovremmo definire Al Capone il "noto evasore fiscale italo-americano", secondo il metodo D'Avanzo. Ma andiamo avanti, non voglio parlare troppo di questo caso ma dei giornali, di come titolano i loro articoli e di quello che scrivono nei loro articoli. Naturalmente, la fonte che D'Avanzo indicava, cioè l'avvocato di questo Aiello che avrebbe detto di avermi pagato le vacanze, ha scritto a D'Avanzo una letterina su Repubblica in cui diceva "io non posso essere la sua fonte perché non l'ho mai sentita ne vista". La risposta di D'Avanzo non è stata "chiedo scusa, mi sono sbagliato, era una balla". Non ce n'è uno che si prenda la responsabilità di aver detto questa balla. Nessuno lo sa. La risposta di D'Avanzo sono due righe, uno vera lezione di giornalismo: "Il ricordo di Michele Aiello - cioè il ricordo che mi aveva pagato le vacanze, che non è vero - è stato raccolto da fonti vicine all'inchiesta". "Fonti vicine all'inchiesta". Tenete presenti queste parole, sono tutte espressioni nuove, neologismi che vengono fuori per l'occasione. "Fonti vicine all'inchiesta". Non si sa chi l'ha detto, sentito, riferito. "Fonti vicine all'inchiesta". Fonti purissime... Il Riformista: "Travaglio si discolpa su Repubblica: 'Ho pagato io quella vacanza'". Il titolo è già interessante: "si discolpa". Ma di che? Io non mi discolpo di niente, non ho fatto niente! Ho raccontato le mie vacanze proprio perché non ho niente da nascondere, mentre a dieci giorni da "Che tempo che fa" l'unico che non ha ancora spiegato è il presidente del Senato. Anche perché spontaneamente non lo farà mai. Ci vorrebbe un giornalista che gli mettesse un microfono sotto il naso e gli facesse la domanda sulla Siculabroker, sul comune di Villabate e sulle sue consulenze. Ma purtroppo non è accaduto. L'unico che gli ha messo sotto il naso il microfono è stato un giornalista del TG1 che, sdraiato carponi, gli ha chiesto: "Presidente, come agevolare il dialogo tra destra e sinistra?". Il presidente, naturalmente, ha risposto che il dialogo è importante. Meglio del dialogo che ha visto in questi giorni: è stato baciato da Anna Finocchiaro con grande trasporto. Non se lo poteva immaginare. Seconda domanda: "Anna Finocchiaro l'ha difesa, è contento?" Fine dell'intervista. Nessuna domanda. Che risponda lui a domande che nessuno gli fa sarebbe abbastanza impensabile, infatti questo è l'unico Paese in cui uno che ha avuto certi rapporti e ha certi particolari biografici può diventare, di fatto, il vicepresidente della Repubblica in quanto seconda carica dello Stato. En passant cito Il Giornale, che invece di parlare di Schifani parla di me in un articolo pieno di balle. A un certo punto c'è scritto che io avrei una rubrica settimanale su Repubblica Torino, ed è vero, in cui rispondo alle lettere "con il vezzo di un autoritratto firmato dal disegnatore Mannelli". Ma come faccio ad avere un autoritratto firmato da un disegnatore che non sono io? Quello si chiama ritratto, l'autoritratto è quello che mi faccio io! Non si sa più nemmeno che parole usare, in certi casi. Si usano parole completamente fasulle. A questo punto che succede? Le nebbie si diradano, si viene a scoprire che anche la storia delle mie vacanze è una balla, nessuno chiede scusa - anzi si scrive "fonti vicine all'inchiesta" - e partono tutte le procedure legali per cercare di tappare la bocca o a chi ha ospitato o a chi ha raccontato questi fatti. Partono le solite authority, i soliti consigli di amministrazioni, le solite commissioni parlamentari di vigilanza. Tutti organismi politici dove ci sono dentro D'Alema, Fassino, Berlusconi, Fini, Mastella, travestiti tramite i loro emissari, che aprono pratiche, minacciano sanzioni, annunciano codici. Addirittura denunciano violazioni che nessuno ha mai commesso perché i codici li conoscono soltanto loro e le regole le conoscono soltanto loro. Io personalmente una regola conosco: verificare se una cosa è vera, accertarmi se sia interessante. Se è vera ed interessante, dirla. L'unica regola che conosco è che non bisogna violare il codice penale. Qualcuno ritiene che l'abbia violato? Lo dimostri in Tribunale. Qualcuno ritiene di avere qualcosa da rispondere? Risponda. Non ho sentito nessuna risposta, solo tante parole al vento. Segnatevi anche questa: contraddittorio. Fabio Fazio è l'intervistatore, io l'intervistato. La cosa accade tutti i sabati e le domeniche sera, si chiama intervista. Prevede che uno faccia le domande e l'altro dia le risposte. In questo caso hanno detto che ci voleva il contraddittorio, una terza persona - non so, la Finocchiaro o Schifani sotto la poltrona - che sbuca fuori per dire di starmi zitto o che sto raccontando balle. Ma questo non è mai avvenuto in nessuna intervista! Tra l'altro al presidente del Senato non mancano i mezzi, basta che faccia un gesto e si ritrova tutte le telecamere ai suoi piedi pronte a riferire qualunque sospiro esca dalla sua bocca. Perfino quando annuncia una lotta solenne e feroce alla mafia, che verrebbe anche meglio se uno non fosse socio dei mafiosi, ma non si può avere tutto dalla vita. La cosa che più mi ha fatto piacere è che questa manovra per screditare chi racconta i fatti non è andata a buon fine: chi riesce a conquistarsi una credibilità col proprio lavoro, con la propria serietà, alla fine ottiene quei famosi riconoscimenti dal basso di cui parlava Enzo Biagi, che sono incompatibili con i riconoscimenti dall'alto. Si deve scegliere: se li vuoi dal basso non li avrai dall'alto, e viceversa. Quindi, svanita la manovra, mi rimangono alcuni messaggi che mi sono appuntato. Uno viene da un mio amico che lavora alla Rai a Londra il quale mi ricordava che, a differenza che nella sua azienda, in Inghilterra quando un giornalista del servizio pubblico, la BBC, viene attaccato succede esattamente il contrario di quanto accade in Italia. Nel 2004 alcuni giornalisti della BBC fecero emergere il dossier Irak, cioè il dossier di bugie organizzate dal governo Blair d'intesa col governo Bush per mentire ai popoli occidentali, raccontare le balle delle armi di distruzione di massa mai trovate e dei rapporti tra Bin Laden e Saddam Hussein che non esistono. Quando andò in onda questo scoop il governo attaccò questi giornalisti. Bene, il presidente e il direttore generale della BBC, servizio pubblico radiotelevisivo pagato con i soldi degli inglesi, anziché prendersela con i giornalisti che li avevano messi in difficoltà con i loro scoop sul governo, si dimisero per difendere i loro cronisti. Da noi avete visto cos'hanno fatto i vertici della Rai, hanno detto che io avevo fatto qualcosa di inqualificabile, evidentemente perché non sono abituati a sentir raccontare la verità mentre quando vedono uno scendiletto che mette il microfono sotto il naso del presidente Schifani per chiedergli come agevolare il dialogo... beh quello gli piace, gli sembra un'intervista vera. Lì non chiedono il contraddittorio e neanche le domande! E' una questione di abitudine. Quando parlano di BBC, se la guardassero almeno un paio di secondi al giorno per capire così un servizio pubblico radiotelevisivo. Altra cosa che mi ha fatto piacere è che molti mi hanno mandato delle citazioni, delle frasi, degli articoli e persino dei detti. Vorrei concludere con un detto catalano che una studentessa di Barcellona in Italia per una borsa di studio mi ha mandato, insieme a uno di Paul Valéry che già conoscevo. Il detto di Paul Valéry è: "c'è un solo modo per vedere realizzati i propri sogni: svegliarsi". C'è un altro detto di Paul Valéry: "se non riesci a demolire il ragionamento, cerca almeno di demolire il ragionatore". La stessa cosa avviene quando non riesci a demolire i fatti, che hanno una loro forza intrinseca, cerca almeno di demolire chi li ha raccontati. Infine, il detto catalano, che questa ragazza mi ha segnalato dicendomi che non le viene in mente niente di più preciso per descrivere la situazione che sta vivendo in Italia, la qual cosa la sgomenta parecchio. E con questa vi lascio: "ci pisciano addosso e ci dicono che sta piovendo". Ciao, a lunedì prossimo."
English subtitle
Good morning everyone. We begin this weekly event. I am a bit 'inexperienced in these matters and so I hope it is good, but it will be better in the coming weeks. I would leaf through the papers with you this week to show what are the problems that plague all such information to us, you all believe, we are very worried. I start with a case that involved me, but in reality it is not my case: it is called "Schifani case" even though many have called "Labor case." Ten days ago I was told by Fabio Fazio a few things already exist in some books and some articles never sued or sued by Schifani but lost the case because a judge has ruled that everything he had written about him was substantially the espresso True, there was no defamation. That evening, as I happened seven years ago when I went for another book in exactly the same conditions by Daniele Luttazzi, took the first chicken egg which is always in these cases, which the then minister and now interim leader of the People of Freedom Maurizio Gasparri who said that there would be political consequences. For a moment I wondered "do Schifani resign?" Actually wanted to dismiss me from I do not know what to hunt and all the leaders conceivable Rai as if I had asked permission or had even received orders from leaders of Rai , let alone, to say those things. I was very impressed by the fact that among the most zealous to intervene against the fact that I said something true, documented and well known, there was the director of RAI 3, Paolo Ruffini, already known for working to close the program by Sabina Guzzanti "Raiot" - also there because they said too many real things together. He said that I have "offended the second highest position in the free state." Indeed it was free, because no one paid me to do it. In fact, Ruffini has a conflict of interest when he talks about Schifani. Maybe none, or few people know that Paolo Ruffini is not [only] namesake of the former Christian Democrat minister and the former Cardinal of Palermo some seventies: he is the son of the minister and the nephew of the Cardinal. But more: the mother of the Director of RAI-3 Ruffini is the sister of Hon. The Lodge is not the namesake of the Parliamentary Forces Italy (who was a member of Schifani Mandalà Nino and then convicted mafia, in the famous Siculabroker society in the late seventies and late eighties): is he ! Practically, Ruffini is the nephew of La Loggia. So, the stories of Siculabroker's just take a trip of views in the family to know them ...
And when he says that I can not tell on television ... let's say you're saying I should not rinvangare some family stories. Of his family. It's called conflict of interest, although in this case, Mr Berlusconi has nothing to do, but no one has pointed out. Patience! Better know who you are dealing with, the speaker and directs the network of progressive Rai, then there are also networks directed by the center. Then what happened? No one has asked Schifani account and reason for that is in the documents but in return, they began to ask me to account for a number of things, however I never did. For example, the best journalist of the "Republic" D'Avanzo has even suggested in a mellifluous that I had made to pay the summer holidays of 2002 or 2003 from a gentleman who was later convicted of Mafia and that I did not never seen or known or heard of. But then he wrote "Who could believe this?". Perhaps it is the first case of a journalist who writes a story in the row above and one below "but no one believes." But if no one believes it because the writing? Why do not you check? Why not do your job? Patience, but this has led to talk of me and of my holiday rather than speak of societies and planning advice of the President of the Senate. Planning advice which, incidentally, were commissioned by the town of Villabate Schifani, one of the most common infiltrated by the mafia, and just from that Nino Mandalà that just fifteen to twenty years before was sitting in the same brokerage firm with Schifani and La Loggia . Municipality which has since been dissolved twice for the Mafia, so Schifani was unable to complete his work about the Master Plan, which according to the chairman of the Municipal Council of Villabate, Francesco Campanella currently in prison and repented, and Schifani La Loggia agreed directly with the boss. D'Avanzo Another lesson: how can you accuse people of having relationships, including business, [with these people] before their indictment and their condemnation? One does not become the day when the mob to condemn mafia or arrest him. It is usually mafioso from an early age, it is difficult to call an adult in the mafia. We recruit youth. Who's in Palermo and put in company with certain people should first find out who they are. Who accepts advice from a town heavily infiltrated by the mafia can not say "I did not know." Prior to working in certain circles you have to take information, and information on Mandalà spot were quite abundant. The magistrates, when they arrive, they are always the last to know, a bit 'like cuckolds. In political circles - said as Paolo Borsellino Giuseppe Aiale but also in his latest book - who some reports you will know well before the judiciary might put pen to paper. Otherwise we should say today that Al Capone was a mobster. Al Capone was never convicted of mob but only for tax evasion. We should define the Al Capone "notorious tax evader Italian-American," according to the method of D'Avanzo. Moving on, I will not talk too much about this case but the newspapers, as the title of their articles and what they write in their articles. Of course, the source indicated that D'Avanzo, that this Aiello's lawyer told me that he paid vacation, D'Avanzo wrote in a letter in La Repubblica as saying "I can not be its source because the 'I never heard or seen. " The answer to D'Avanzo was not "excuse me, I was wrong, it was a lie." There's not one who takes responsibility for having told this lie. Nobody knows. The answer is two lines of D'Avanzo, a real lesson in journalism: "The memory of Michele Aiello - that is, remember that I had paid vacation, which is not true - was collected from sources close to the investigation". "Sources close to the investigation". Keep in mind these words are all new expressions, new words that come out for the occasion. "Sources close to the investigation". We do not know who said, heard, reported. "Sources close to the investigation". Sources pure ... The reforms: "Labor is exculpatory to the Republic: 'I'm the one paid holiday'." The title is already interesting, "is exculpatory." But why? I do not excuse anything, I did not do anything! I told my vacation because I have nothing to hide, while in ten days "Che tempo che fa" the only one who has not yet explained is the chairman of the Senate. Also because he will never voluntarily. It would take a journalist who put a microphone under his nose and did Siculabroker on demand, on the town of Villabate and its advice. But unfortunately it did not happen. The only one who has put the microphone under the nose has been a journalist for the TG1, which lay on all fours, he asked: "President, how best to facilitate dialogue between left and right?". The president, of course, replied that the dialogue is important. Better than the box that has seen these days: it was kissed by Anna Finocchiaro with great transport. Not if he could imagine. Second question: "Anna Finocchiaro has defended her, is happy?" End of interview. No question. Which he responds to questions that no one makes it quite impossible, in fact this is the only country in which one who has had certain relationships and certain biographical details can become, in fact, the Vice-President of the Republic as the second Head of State. En passant I quote the journalist, who instead of talking about me Schifani in an article full of lies. At one point it says that I had a weekly column on Republic Turin, and it is true, that answer letters "with the habit of a portrait signed by artist Mannelli. But how do I get a self-portrait signed by an artist who is not me? What is called the portrait, the portrait is what I do I! We do not know what words to use even more, in some cases. We use words completely bogus. Now what happens? The fog clears, it turns out that the story of my holiday is a lie, no apologies - in fact it is written "sources close to the investigation" - and leave all the legal procedures to try to plug the mouth or who has housed or who told these facts. Aside from the usual authority, the usual advice to government, the usual supervisory committees. All political bodies where we are in D'Alema, Fassino, Berlusconi, Fini, Mastella, disguised through their emissaries, who open practice, threatening sanctions, announcing codes. Even denounce violations that no one has ever done because the codes will only know them and know only the rules themselves. I personally know of a rule: whether something is true, make sure if it's interesting. If it is true and interesting, to put it. The only rule I know is that you must not violate the penal code. Someone deemed to have violated? Prove it in court. Some people think you have something to say? Respond. I have not heard any response, only so many words in the wind. Take note also this: be heard. Fabio Fazio is the interviewer, the interviewee I. It happens every Saturday and Sunday evening, called interview. Provides that an ask questions and give each other the answers. In this case said they heard we wanted a third person - do not know, Finocchiaro Schifani or under the chair - which comes out to speak to abide shut up or I'm telling lies. But this has never happened in any interview! Among other things, the chairman of the Senate does not lack the means, just make a gesture and finds all the cameras at his feet ready to report any sigh come out of his mouth. Even when he announces a solemn and fierce fight against the mafia, which would be even better if it were not a mob associate, but you can not have everything in life. The thing I was pleased that this maneuver is to discredit those who tell the facts is not successful: those who succeed in gaining credibility with his own work, with its seriousness, at the end of the famous ones get awards from the bottom of which Enzo Biagi spoke, which are incompatible with the top awards. You have to choose if you want them you from the bottom, and vice versa. So vanished the maneuver, I have left some messages that I pinned. One comes from a friend of mine who works at the Rai in London that reminded me that, unlike in his company in England when a reporter from the public service, the BBC is attacked it is exactly the opposite of what happens in Italy. In 2004, some journalists from the BBC did emerge the Iraq dossier, the dossier of lies that is organized by the Blair government in agreement with the Bush administration for lying to the people of the West, telling the bales of weapons of mass destruction were never found and the relationship between Bin Laden Saddam Hussein and that does not exist. When he went on the air scoop that the government attacked these journalists. Well, the President and the Director General of the BBC, public service broadcaster paid for with money the British, rather than blame the journalists who had put them in trouble with their scoop on the government, resigned to defend their reporters. With us you saw what they did the leaders of the Rai, have said that I had done something unspeakable, evidently because they are not accustomed to be told the truth when they see a rug while putting the microphone under the nose of the President to ask Schifani how to facilitate the dialogue ... Well that's like, the interview seems real. There are not asking for the contradictory and even the questions! It 's a matter of habit. When they speak of the BBC, if you look at a few seconds a day to understand it a public service broadcaster. Another thing that I was glad they sent me is that many of the quotations, phrases, and even of those articles. Let me conclude with a saying that a student of Catalan in Barcelona in Italy for a scholarship sent me, along with a Paul Valery I already knew. That is Paul Valéry: "there is only one way to see their dreams come true: wake up." There is another saying of Paul Valéry: "If you can not demolish the argument, at least try to demolish the reasoning." The same thing happens when you can not destroy the facts, which have their own inherent strength, at least try to tear down those who have told. Finally, said Catalan, who pointed me to this girl saying she did not think of anything more precise to describe the situation that is living in Italy, which would dismay the lot. And I leave you with this: "We piss on him and tell us it's raining."
And when he says that I can not tell on television ... let's say you're saying I should not rinvangare some family stories. Of his family. It's called conflict of interest, although in this case, Mr Berlusconi has nothing to do, but no one has pointed out. Patience! Better know who you are dealing with, the speaker and directs the network of progressive Rai, then there are also networks directed by the center. Then what happened? No one has asked Schifani account and reason for that is in the documents but in return, they began to ask me to account for a number of things, however I never did. For example, the best journalist of the "Republic" D'Avanzo has even suggested in a mellifluous that I had made to pay the summer holidays of 2002 or 2003 from a gentleman who was later convicted of Mafia and that I did not never seen or known or heard of. But then he wrote "Who could believe this?". Perhaps it is the first case of a journalist who writes a story in the row above and one below "but no one believes." But if no one believes it because the writing? Why do not you check? Why not do your job? Patience, but this has led to talk of me and of my holiday rather than speak of societies and planning advice of the President of the Senate. Planning advice which, incidentally, were commissioned by the town of Villabate Schifani, one of the most common infiltrated by the mafia, and just from that Nino Mandalà that just fifteen to twenty years before was sitting in the same brokerage firm with Schifani and La Loggia . Municipality which has since been dissolved twice for the Mafia, so Schifani was unable to complete his work about the Master Plan, which according to the chairman of the Municipal Council of Villabate, Francesco Campanella currently in prison and repented, and Schifani La Loggia agreed directly with the boss. D'Avanzo Another lesson: how can you accuse people of having relationships, including business, [with these people] before their indictment and their condemnation? One does not become the day when the mob to condemn mafia or arrest him. It is usually mafioso from an early age, it is difficult to call an adult in the mafia. We recruit youth. Who's in Palermo and put in company with certain people should first find out who they are. Who accepts advice from a town heavily infiltrated by the mafia can not say "I did not know." Prior to working in certain circles you have to take information, and information on Mandalà spot were quite abundant. The magistrates, when they arrive, they are always the last to know, a bit 'like cuckolds. In political circles - said as Paolo Borsellino Giuseppe Aiale but also in his latest book - who some reports you will know well before the judiciary might put pen to paper. Otherwise we should say today that Al Capone was a mobster. Al Capone was never convicted of mob but only for tax evasion. We should define the Al Capone "notorious tax evader Italian-American," according to the method of D'Avanzo. Moving on, I will not talk too much about this case but the newspapers, as the title of their articles and what they write in their articles. Of course, the source indicated that D'Avanzo, that this Aiello's lawyer told me that he paid vacation, D'Avanzo wrote in a letter in La Repubblica as saying "I can not be its source because the 'I never heard or seen. " The answer to D'Avanzo was not "excuse me, I was wrong, it was a lie." There's not one who takes responsibility for having told this lie. Nobody knows. The answer is two lines of D'Avanzo, a real lesson in journalism: "The memory of Michele Aiello - that is, remember that I had paid vacation, which is not true - was collected from sources close to the investigation". "Sources close to the investigation". Keep in mind these words are all new expressions, new words that come out for the occasion. "Sources close to the investigation". We do not know who said, heard, reported. "Sources close to the investigation". Sources pure ... The reforms: "Labor is exculpatory to the Republic: 'I'm the one paid holiday'." The title is already interesting, "is exculpatory." But why? I do not excuse anything, I did not do anything! I told my vacation because I have nothing to hide, while in ten days "Che tempo che fa" the only one who has not yet explained is the chairman of the Senate. Also because he will never voluntarily. It would take a journalist who put a microphone under his nose and did Siculabroker on demand, on the town of Villabate and its advice. But unfortunately it did not happen. The only one who has put the microphone under the nose has been a journalist for the TG1, which lay on all fours, he asked: "President, how best to facilitate dialogue between left and right?". The president, of course, replied that the dialogue is important. Better than the box that has seen these days: it was kissed by Anna Finocchiaro with great transport. Not if he could imagine. Second question: "Anna Finocchiaro has defended her, is happy?" End of interview. No question. Which he responds to questions that no one makes it quite impossible, in fact this is the only country in which one who has had certain relationships and certain biographical details can become, in fact, the Vice-President of the Republic as the second Head of State. En passant I quote the journalist, who instead of talking about me Schifani in an article full of lies. At one point it says that I had a weekly column on Republic Turin, and it is true, that answer letters "with the habit of a portrait signed by artist Mannelli. But how do I get a self-portrait signed by an artist who is not me? What is called the portrait, the portrait is what I do I! We do not know what words to use even more, in some cases. We use words completely bogus. Now what happens? The fog clears, it turns out that the story of my holiday is a lie, no apologies - in fact it is written "sources close to the investigation" - and leave all the legal procedures to try to plug the mouth or who has housed or who told these facts. Aside from the usual authority, the usual advice to government, the usual supervisory committees. All political bodies where we are in D'Alema, Fassino, Berlusconi, Fini, Mastella, disguised through their emissaries, who open practice, threatening sanctions, announcing codes. Even denounce violations that no one has ever done because the codes will only know them and know only the rules themselves. I personally know of a rule: whether something is true, make sure if it's interesting. If it is true and interesting, to put it. The only rule I know is that you must not violate the penal code. Someone deemed to have violated? Prove it in court. Some people think you have something to say? Respond. I have not heard any response, only so many words in the wind. Take note also this: be heard. Fabio Fazio is the interviewer, the interviewee I. It happens every Saturday and Sunday evening, called interview. Provides that an ask questions and give each other the answers. In this case said they heard we wanted a third person - do not know, Finocchiaro Schifani or under the chair - which comes out to speak to abide shut up or I'm telling lies. But this has never happened in any interview! Among other things, the chairman of the Senate does not lack the means, just make a gesture and finds all the cameras at his feet ready to report any sigh come out of his mouth. Even when he announces a solemn and fierce fight against the mafia, which would be even better if it were not a mob associate, but you can not have everything in life. The thing I was pleased that this maneuver is to discredit those who tell the facts is not successful: those who succeed in gaining credibility with his own work, with its seriousness, at the end of the famous ones get awards from the bottom of which Enzo Biagi spoke, which are incompatible with the top awards. You have to choose if you want them you from the bottom, and vice versa. So vanished the maneuver, I have left some messages that I pinned. One comes from a friend of mine who works at the Rai in London that reminded me that, unlike in his company in England when a reporter from the public service, the BBC is attacked it is exactly the opposite of what happens in Italy. In 2004, some journalists from the BBC did emerge the Iraq dossier, the dossier of lies that is organized by the Blair government in agreement with the Bush administration for lying to the people of the West, telling the bales of weapons of mass destruction were never found and the relationship between Bin Laden Saddam Hussein and that does not exist. When he went on the air scoop that the government attacked these journalists. Well, the President and the Director General of the BBC, public service broadcaster paid for with money the British, rather than blame the journalists who had put them in trouble with their scoop on the government, resigned to defend their reporters. With us you saw what they did the leaders of the Rai, have said that I had done something unspeakable, evidently because they are not accustomed to be told the truth when they see a rug while putting the microphone under the nose of the President to ask Schifani how to facilitate the dialogue ... Well that's like, the interview seems real. There are not asking for the contradictory and even the questions! It 's a matter of habit. When they speak of the BBC, if you look at a few seconds a day to understand it a public service broadcaster. Another thing that I was glad they sent me is that many of the quotations, phrases, and even of those articles. Let me conclude with a saying that a student of Catalan in Barcelona in Italy for a scholarship sent me, along with a Paul Valery I already knew. That is Paul Valéry: "there is only one way to see their dreams come true: wake up." There is another saying of Paul Valéry: "If you can not demolish the argument, at least try to demolish the reasoning." The same thing happens when you can not destroy the facts, which have their own inherent strength, at least try to tear down those who have told. Finally, said Catalan, who pointed me to this girl saying she did not think of anything more precise to describe the situation that is living in Italy, which would dismay the lot. And I leave you with this: "We piss on him and tell us it's raining."
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento