Oliviero
Beha
Between
the end of 1998 and the beginning of 1999 a polemic 
apparently
interesting has been introduced among horoscopes and the simple worldliness
and the expectations (on prove) of the third millennium: I'm referring to
the stammering meditation principle about confusing the reporter and the television
entertainer. But how is it, the president of the order of reporters has been
questioned about with the usual roughness (not existing, or not existing yet
the professional order of the television entertainers...), that after Castagna
also Cucuzza leaves the authoritative role of the reporter to follow Pollicione
Galeazzi on the way of the compère success? Where are we finishing?
How will the public do to find his way? Where will the genre contamination
bring us? etc...etc... Some has intervened scratching about in the same yard:
so the television information has been left to Gabibbo of “Striscia la notizia”,
so we are submerged by the television gossip press, so they are symptoms of
an uncommitted strategy, etc. etc. Why have I defined this immature debate
'apparently interesting'? Maybe the question is not plenty of implications
and does not regard all us? Sure. And so? Let's see. That “apparently “ recalls
just the appearance, main television category and already an existential category
(seeming) not to be set aside. The matter is not planted seriously, it is
not really discussed, but stops there. Hence my not troubled prediction about
an apparently interest. Not only: all who has intervened in this outline of
discussion have done it “playing “
a role , so appearing in their roles: the president of the order, the television
spectacle star, the television star coming from journalism and just arrived
to the 'small screen personage “, lent to entertainment, the authoritative
journalist deprecating this change (but why has it not happened to him and
his cachet...), the authoritative and 'experienced' journalist who can so
deliver sentences from his personal data-professional sanctuary. They are,
these reporters, an after-effects of a more general disease, that is the turning
news into a show. But this is the root of the bad tree. Since ever information
has had two souls, the service one and the product one. Information is sold
as if it were only a good, being instead besides a real good a particular
good, and you will see that new technologies, starting from Internet, will
show it and prove it with strength. It is objected that in the image civilization, 
dominated
by television, turning into a show is a “must” of whom makes television information
and so conditioning toward an unavoidable emulation also radio and press,
even if those have fewer in common with image. My radio and television professional
experience makes me bear that it is unnecessary to gild the pill against one's
will, that it is not obligated to become tinged with rose news bulletins,
and news broadcasts and newspapers, as well as radio and television programs,
to make them been swallowed by the public, excuse used 'not' to make real
information. Let's deal with reality, problems, with the need of a right and
free radio and television and also newspaper 'language' and you will see that
information is a good that is sold very well even as a sub-species of service.
Mensile di scienza medica e attualita`