The controversy of the moment is that of Santoro on severance pay by the RAI, and as usual, the theater broke out of personal preference and speeches on freedom of information used by the tribunes of the people. Who hates Santoro on one side for political reasons, who believes a Paraculo, who is a partisan of the information, who's afraid of bears but regggime, those who are afraid of not seeing vomit Travaglio two billion facts on a person unprepared , and so on in an uproar.
"it was you who ruin the public television, it's your fault"
Ultimately, these people would not want a balanced public tv etc, would like a TV as they like, but without paying more in addition to the canon.
I wanted to express my opinion too, but since I hate to join in choruses tragic - although I like to confront, but the two I have no doubt what to choose in general - I do it here as a post, so I even the constraint of short answer (1).
So, I think the whole discussion is pointless.
It makes no sense because from my point of view it is a (not very interesting) detail of a larger problem: in Italy public TV does not work. It is a wrong notion . It is not compatible with our country and can not work, has amply demonstrated.
Why not working? because as long as there will be a public television parties - and generally anyone who has political significance - will try to share the leave and occupy. The deal will want to have political influence on reporting, and to place the famous dwarfs and the famous dancers, and if the Sparta because eventually everyone will gain something.
No party is immune from this, just think that at the time the PCI Craxi's Television Act did pass legislation in exchange for control over RaiTre. They divided the Rai, the Christian Democrats held RaiUno, the Socialists and the PCI RaiDue RaiTre. Is this normal? is what you want? I think not.
Then he said of the dwarfs and dancers. When top management Rai decided that after 10 seasons of Enchantment shit had to be done to end, there were even parliamentary questions on why they should continue to do so. Just to confirm what kind of dump that was incapable of fiction, but what was useful to the political power to accommodate people and build friendships, exchange favors (or believe that Boris invent things? Is all true, and the only place where they would have sent such a thing is Sky, not on the same Rai).
This then introduces another issue: the quality of programming. Rai programs suck. They are unwatchable, obscene in terms of design, old, useless, boring. Because they are responding to the specific demands: the politically incorrect pull, but a program like Satyricon annoyed too many people, so it is not even considered. The lowest quality drama populated by actors relatives dogs are a tragedy for someone's eyes, watching them bring depression. They have that stupid glossy photo, insipid stories, the director of a child with learning problems. Are they seem so grotesque parody of a fiction, and the grotesque comes from not knowing how to distinguish a parody of reality. Years ago, many laughed for a fiction that Lombard could be found on youtube - I can not remember the name - because he had all these negative characteristics to the nth degree, I do not have to laugh though, because it's the same feeling that I give the production Rai , I'm used to. The fiction turn right instead, such as Moana, Sky buys because they have managers who think Murdoch to gain rather than to do wrong to none.
Rai as a public service
Let to imagine that there is public television in Italy. Who can not stand
Santoro says he is pulled in € 10 million severance pay, and adds "we taxpayers money - paid for it to stop generating revenue." If Rai is not public money of that sum would not be state money and no one could argue a shit. If a private network that decides to forgo the revenue for its internal decisions is free to do so, I do not give a shit. There are some who complain that Santoro goes away the opposition from the Rai, which will not be longer represented a political party, while a public service should be all alike. If the problem still be deprived Rai once would not arise: if the editorial is right transmissions will be oriented to the right if the left is will be oriented to the left. Free to do so (within limits imposed by law, of course, but we're not talking about television in the party, but of commercial television. FoxTV It counts as a TV party, Mr Murdoch), to the extent that an individual is free to do what he pleases of his property (2). Then there is the problem, this is a bit 'more seriously, to avoid monopolization of television, but in the transition from private to public + private could only intervene with the appropriate sneaky behavior and ad hoc as we do so we Italians good (3): they sell off the frequencies, taking care to prevent some people from buying too much, perhaps with some great office, and taking care of some entrepreneurs to put some on the left, perhaps by accepting a lower price in exchange for phantom "technological improvements "or collateral agreements, in short, taking care to create a situation vaguely balanced. Once you reach this situation is still not perhaps, that the state as the majority shareholder of these TV companies in order to avoid a war that will start to buy smaller ones. Or a decision that still has this effect. And the production of poor quality? in a competitive companies will compete to make the best products goodbye to the players and place dogs, photo of shit goodbye, goodbye old film loop of years and talk shows followed useless just because there's nothing else to see.
Rai if it were a private service. Appreciate the difference by yourself or should I let you see me?
So this is more or less everything. Solve many problems together, not least to make unnecessary controversies like the one of these days, and the various political conflicts and blah blah on various public television. Personally I would be very happy not already feel them in my life.
Ah, I add one thing: If you should come to have only one private television service and a fair system of competition, sooner or later some of these companies begin to make contracts with telephone companies and Internet providers to provide cable TV, and at that point for them could be cost-effective modernization of the Italian network to allow the passage of tv-phone-internet all together, thus relieving the state (via telecom) of this vile task (which today can not afford, and that explains the state does not own the Mighty Our internet).
(1): generally can not stand people who write for the forum post gargantuan. I find them incapable of dealing. When an exchange of views reaches that size should be continued by letter, not on a forum, because no one aside from the direct question he really wanted to read a Pippone absurd to understand what you are talking about. The ability to summarize the basic rules put in a forum, then not trusting imporrei a maximum size to post sensible to punish and prevent the cunning of a post just below your post.
(2): actually a bit 'just in Italy, if we speak in the broadest sense. You have no idea of \u200b\u200bthe quantity of permits and red tape needed to put a fireplace or wood tool shed in the garden, or even had a living thing. A number of unnecessary rules designed by morons whose sole aim is to stress the city, until someone will say you love her and will buy up the votes to abolish.
(3): here and there would have to talk at length, but I would avoid a post-dispersive like the previous one, so all reference to a future post.
0 comments:
Post a Comment