The Italianist

There is (at least) one week every year in which everything is put on hold, in Italy, and the entire country focuses on one specific event: the Sanremo Music Festival.

It’s a 5 day-singing competition, where basically people sing songs, a jury gives votes, each day someone is excluded, and eventually one wins. Normally, the songs are cheesy and boring. One of the boring songs wins the festival; there is a separate category for the “Young Promises”, with its own winner. Sometimes good singers have come up from the Festival (one being, for example, Alex Baroni – whom I really liked and who, sadly, died a few years ago). On the downside, the Festival has given to the world Andrea Bocelli.

The weeks before the Festival are characterised by a build-up of national thrilling about what the guests will be, who will present the show, who will do what, who will say what, and sometimes even who will sing what. There is normally a standard structure: the presenter is a man, a popular face from TV or music. Then there are two co-presenters, one at his left and one at his right: these are, by rules, mega-hot women with a (recent) past of being sluts or similar. The Festival has just started and will run until the 18th of February. This year’s and last year’s team was the same: presenter, the man, the famous singer from the 60s, Gianni Morandi; left wing, Elisabetta Canalis, famous for being Goerge Clooney’s date for a while; and Belen Rodriguez, famous for having long legs.

Here’s a group picture:

Morandi is the one in the middle.

Being at its 60th-something edition, there is some concern that the attachment of the Italian population to the festival might decrease. So, the authors have devised a series of cunning strategies to attract a bigger audience.

This was the most successful one, which took place on the first night of the Festival. Enters one of the co-presenters, Belen Rodriguez:

Yes, you may want to zoom in.

The day after this show, the Vatican expressed harsh criticisms.

The target was a man called Adriano Celentano. A guest of the Festival, during the show he publicly called for people to stop reading L’Avvenire, the Vatican’s newspaper. The Bishops commented that Celentano’s comment was inappropriate, and that he should not appear again at the following nights of the Festival.

Immediately after that, an executive of RAI, the Italian national TV channel that hosts the Festival, and who has an interest in getting as big an audience as possible, joined the Vatican’s condemnation, pointing out that Celentano’s language “was unsuitable for public service”.

More songs, and more vaginas, to come in the next two days.

There are days, in Italy, when football receives as much attention as politics, and sometimes even more. Today it’s been one of those days. Here’s what happened. As part of Serie A Football League, yesterday evening Lazio faced the leading team, Inter FC, which was returning from a dramatic yet heroic qualification to the Champions League Final on last week. The stakes were quite high: Inter had to win so to keep the lead of the League, given that Rome FC, who had played in the afternoon, was one point ahead.

Rome FC and Lazio are both football teams of the city of Rome. Needless to say, Rome and Lazio’s supporters are arch-enemy. The football history of the city has always hinged around the Yellow-and-Red flag of Rome FC, and the Blue-and-White colours of Lazio. The former, celebrated by romantic songs and famous movies, the latter slightly less successful and with less liberal views. The differences have often resulted in inflamed clashes.

Before the match, Lazio fans found themselves in the strange situation of being able to help Rome win the League: in fact, had they won against Inter FC, Rome would have gone back to leading the ranking. Rome supporters, by the same token, had to get to grips with the idea of supporting Lazio’s victory, something which a true Roman does never do. However, Rome FC also feared that something fishy could have happened..

The result was that Inter FC won, 2-0. Inter is really rocking this year, and it would be hard for anyone to win against them. Nonetheless, someone noticed something strange happening during the match.

When Inter FC entered the stadium (Lazio was hosting the match), everyone cheered at them. I mean, both the Inter and the Lazio supporters. Then, some strange banners popped out on the terraces:

“Let’s step aside”

“League: Game Over”

People were surprisingly cheerful:

In a couple of occasions, Lazio’s keeper made a good save, and the Lazio supporters seemed to be booing him. Then, eventually, Inter FC scored. And this banner appeared:

Then someone started to think that things were not happening, so to speak, spontaneously. That is to say, that Lazio’s supporters did not want their team to win: more specifically, they did not want Rome to win. These doubts were buttressed, for example, by the fact that Lazio supporters were heard singing “Se segnate ve menamo!” (“If you score, we’ll beat you up!”), towards their own players.

Some comments on the web, today, seem to avail this possibility. Lazio’s fans are quoted from their blogs as pointing out that it would be hell for them to have to live in a Yellow-and-Red Rome, following Rome FC’s victory in the League. Nor could they accept the constant “sfottò“, the teasing that the Rome fans would throw at them if Rome won the League. Rome fans, on the other hand, are now yelling their rage against the Biancocelesti (White and Blue) in every corner of the media.

Politicians have stepped in too, to comment on the match. Maurizio Gasparri, President of the Senators of the PDL, and strenuous Rome FC’s fan, remarked that yesterday “a page of shame was written”. Cicchitto, from the same coalition, defined the match “a depressing scene”. Paolo Cento, President of the Rome FC Club of the Chamber of Deputies (!), highlights that what emerged from yesterday’s match is “the way football is managed”. A prompt reply arrived from the President of Lazio Club of the Chamber of Deputies (!), who highlights that Rome would have done exactly the same thing to Lazio. Gavino Angius, from the PD, went even further in stressing the ethical implications of the match, and called for sanctions against Lazio.

I think it’s a bit too much, Gavino. I don’t think that Lazio players are to be blamed. Nor, in my humble opinion, should Lazio fans. These things are part of football, I am afraid.

“Lazio fan, ask Santa Claus to bring you 3 points”

 From the Daily Telegraph..

The Italian Government has made an important contribution to the field of jurisprudence, by emanating a decree that aims to clarify how the law is to be interpreted. That is correct: as the Home Secretary, Roberto Maroni, explained last night, the Government has not changed any law but simply specified how the law is to be interpreted. This follows a typically Italian mess in the build-up towards the regional elections, to be held in Italy at the end of March. In two regions, Lazio and Lombardia, the PDL (the Party actually in charge of the Government) did not present the official lists of candidates within the official deadline. In the case of Lazio, the list led by Renata Polverini simply missed the deadline because the person in charge went for lunch. In the case of Roberto Formigoni, in Lombardia, the list contained names of dead people, illegible names, and was missing official stamps. This is Renata Polverini:

And this is Formigoni:

Missing ther deadline for lst submision meant the PDL was excluded from particiating in the elections both in Lazio and Lombarida. The Prime Minister was not happy. Neither were lots of the candidates in his Party’s list, whose hopes of a (quite likely) electoral success were suddenly quashed. Among them, Nicole Minetti, the dentist who took care of Silvio Berlusconi’s face after the famous attack in Milan last December. She was ready to join Berlusconi’s Government, and was now disappointed at her quashed political aspirations, as the CosmeticDentistryGuide explains.
A long debate followed in Italy in the past days. It appeared clear that the exclusion of the PDL from the elections in two of Italy’s most important regions was unacceptable. The anger of the PM towards his Party’s inefficiency soon turned into something else, and a new interpreattion of what was happening cameto light: once again, the communists were trying to block the PM’s party from governing. Though polls at the moment say that the Government’s approval ratings are wavering, it also seems unlikely that the actual opposition Party could get voters’ support. A clear emergency occurred, and the Government –as usual- responded to it promptly.
So, they created –almost overnight- a decree meant “to defend the rules of democracy and guarantee the right of active and passive electorate”. I have to admit: I tried to understand what active/passive electorate is. Can anyone who happens to read this please explain it to me?

Maroni clarified what the decree’s aims are: “We did not change the electoral rules (which is always good to know, given the elections are in 3 weeks – thank you, Roberto). The current laws have not been modified, but what it has been offered through the decree is an authentic interpretation” of them. Basically, the Government has told the judges what to do. One could ask “What is the point of having judges then?” It seems that the Government makes the law, and also says how it has to be interpreted. That’s it. A fuller account of the story, and of the polemics it has generated, can be found here, and here.

Without asking other questions, I  want to quote a couple of passages from the decree. The translation is sometimes literal, sometimes not, but I promise it is faithful. The official document (in Italian) can be found on Repubblica.it.

1.    “When the law says that the lists have to be handed in at time X on day Y, that does not mean that the lists have to be handed by time X on day Y. What it means is that the persons in charge of handing in the lists enter the area of the office for lists submission, having the lists with them, by time X on day Y. Their presence in the building can be assessed by any appropriate means.”

My interpretation: This means that if you go out for lunch without handing in the lists, you’ve met the deadline anyway. The word deadline, we all agree, can be very deceptive, so it’s good this decree made things clearer.
 

2.    “The signatures on the list are considered valid even if they are not fully authentic, insofar as their validity overall can be deduced by other elements within the documentation provided. In particular, the authenticity of the signatures is not compromised by a merely formal irregularity, such as the absence or non-readability of the authenticating stamp, or of the specification of where the authentication was made, or of an indication of what qualifies the authenticator to authenticate, insofar as s/he has been authorized. (My emphasis).”

My interpretation: the fact that the names on your list cannot be read does not mean you do not have a list. The fact that where you say “Mario Bianchi” there appears to be a stain does not make that name on your list invalid. The fact that no one has recognized your list as valid does not mean it is not valid. Your accidental spilling coffee over the paper which makes anything unreadable is not necessarily a reason against accepting that piece of paper as a valid list. At the end of the day, it is just an election, for God’s sake! Shut up and bring me another coffee.

3.    This applies also to the next regional elections.

Comments are very welcome.

David Mills, a man who has been accused to have accepted bribes from the Italian Prime Minister, has been “acquitted” today by an Italian Court. Here is the story.

The Economist today published an interesting review of the Italian Prime Minister’s (and his associates’..) issues with the legal system. This can be found here, and for some it takes a long time to read it all..

The Italian PM has commented on the sentence by defining the judges “a bunch of Talibans”.

***UPDATE***

Reporting on the quashed sentence, the Italian TV news happily talk of Mills’ (hence Berlusconi’s) acquittal. A petitition has been organised on Facebook to ask the Italian TV RAI to apologize for the deceiving report.

Among the various characteristics typical of Italy, there is that we are always labelled as “mammoni” or, as it is becoming more and more fashionable now, “bamboccioni”. Bamboccioni is an Italian expression which broadly refers to someone who stares at things with a not too-smart face and, most of all, not a very proactive attitude. Like a big ‘bambino’, a big baby. Applied to everyday life, it is now used to indicate Italians in their late 20s-early 30s, who are still living with their parents instead of building up their own, independent existence. 

This is a serious issue in Italy: I have to say I know no one of my friends who, before being 30, moved out of their houses. Some of them moved out to study at universities in different cities, but after their degree they all came back to their home town and to their family house. I am always surprised by seeing British kids fleeing from their houses as soon as they turn 18: I also always thought that that is partly because Italians have a healthier concept of family than the Anglo-Saxon do, yet Italy’s situation is definitely too much. 

Different explanations are offered for this peculiar Italian feature. Some say it is the laziness of the young generation, together with mothers’ over-protective attitude towards their ‘kids’. Others say it is rather because the economy does not allow a 30-year old to start an independent life: while the cost of life skyrocketed over the last 8 years, wages remained the same, and the welfare system is not really supporting young generations in search of a stable job.

Here comes Renato Brunetta, Minister of Public Administration:

Brunetta is one of the main responsibles for the rise in the use of the label bamboccioni. He definitely sides with the first of the two possible explanations mentioned above: Italian adults are lazy and unwilling to get to grips with the responsibilities of a mamma-less life. So, last week he shot the first arrow at the bamboccioni’s chest, proposing to force them to leave their family when they turn 18.

Yesterday, he went further. With the acumen that always characterizes Italian key politicians, he claimed (during the famous gossip-Tv-program-with-lots-of -dancers-in-bikini Domenica In) that the Government should detract 500euros per month from the pension of over 55-year old parents, to be fed into a fund to support the bamboccioni’s take off towards independence.

Brunetta, who openly claim he wasn’t able to make his bed when he was 30 for he was still living with his mother who would make it for him, confessed that “ the blanket is small and there is no room for everyone under it”. And that “Italy is full of good guys, who take risk and want freedom. It’s their parents’ fault if their wings are cut”.

The Government has clarified that this idea is “absolutely personal of Brunetta, and it does not have anything to do with this Government’s plans”.

Knowing what this Government’s plans are, the bamboccioni can keeping sleeping (un)happily under the blanket of their parents’ bed for a long time yet.

More on mammoni here.

A month has gone since the day the Italian PM Berlusconi was hit by a statuette of the Duomo in Milan, thrown at his face by a mentally ill person, Massimo Tartaglia. The world still remembers, and will for a long time, the shocking images of Berlusconi’s face covered in blood, his eyes staring blankly at the cameras.. That was really a scary episode, and it has been described as the result of the “climate of hatred” that anti-democratic individuals had fostered against the PM in the months leading to the attack.

Sadly, the Government had to (temporarily..) give up some of the most urgent and necessary measures to prevent further spreading of hatred.  Hence, the enemies of democracy have been able to come back on track, and use the internet to keep the fire of hatred going. Now, some of these emenies of democracy are even claiming that Berlusconi had not been injured at all, and that the attack was set up by the PM’s entourage. How could they say so? I am going to mention a few anti-democratic points about the accident.

Here is, once more, a video of what happened:

One main anti-democratic question has to do with the PM’s security service. In a case like that, it is expected they protect the PM’s safety, by taking him away immediately from the place of the attack. There could be other attackers ready to strike again. Instead, Berlusconi was taken into the car, which remained there. After a while, he came out again. His security guys even helping him to stand up and show himself to the public! I can see two explanations for this (apart, of course, from the anti-democratic one): a) Security did not know of the climate of hatred ; b) Berlusconi was showing Italians that a further increase in the tax load will be justified by the cost of re-making his face.

The infamous statuette of the Duomo was never found. We know that it is what Tartaglia used to hit Berlusconi. But how do we know that, since it’s never been found? Also, some point out, undemocratically, the strange trajectory the object has when it hit the PM, and his very unnatural reaction when hit by it. He covers his face with a coat, or a bag, or whatever black he has in his hands. A Youtube video highlights the strange fact that, before throwing the object at Berlusconi, Tartaglia is standing just between two journalists, one holding a TV camera, another holding a microphone. According to an anti-democratic theory, the man with the microphone says something to Tartaglia, before the latter carries out his evil act.

In an undemocratic frame, it appears quite clearly that there is no blood on Berlusconi’s face when he enters the car. That frame refers to a moment in which Tartaglia has been already identified and immobilized by the security service: which means, some 20seconds (or more) after the object hit Berlusconi’s face. No sign  of blood. Then Silvio goes into the car, and when he gets out, blood everywhere.

Not really everywhere, actually. After the promenade, Berlusconi is taken to the hospital. His personal doctor, Alberto Zagrillo, informs the journalists of the PM conditions: the impact with the little sculpture of Milan’s Duomo had caused a fractured nose, two broken teeth, a facial trauma. Berlusconi had also lost half-a litre of blood.

Yet there is no trace of this bloodshed on his face: his shirt is perfectly white. No blood running from his nose.

The anti-democrats say this was all set up to get Berlusconi out of the fire, after months of accusations for sex scandals, corruption, anti-constitutional laws and mafia links. This is all impossible, of course: Berlusconi entered politics SIXTEEN years ago, promising a “New Italian Miracle”.

He has clearly fulfilled his promise:

13th December 2009

6th January 2010

Further performances of the Italian Government as regards immigration policy. Today it is about reforming the school system.

The Minister of Education, Mariastella Gelmini, has announced new policies regulating the number of foreigners which will be allowed in each class in primary and secondary italian schools from the next academic year (2010-11).

This is Gelmini:

I have to admit it is the first time I don’t manage to find a picture of a female minister who is not being portrayed naked (see previous posts on this blog).. Anyway, the elegant Mariastella has made public that the Italian Government has planned to introduce a cap on the number of foreign students who will be allowed to attend Italian schools next year: no more than 3 every 10 students, that is, no more than 30% per each italian class. A fuller account of the story can be found here.

Now, I don’t think this is a completely unreasonable thing, or at least I think it is below the average madness of this Government’s proposals. But still, there are lots of things that make little sense to me.

To begin with: Gelmini says that this policy has nothing to do with racism, rather it is a plan to favour multicultural integration. Her reasoning goes as follows:

some people exist in Italy which are not Italian; they don’t speak Italian nor do they know our culture; if we let them free to enrol in school, they will all go together and, therefore, will create fully foreign classes; this will cause “ghettoes”; this will stop an (already flourishing..) process of integration. The 30% cap is accompanied by a requirement that foreign students pass a test of Italian culture, by which they will have to demonstrate a not-clearly specified knowledge of Italian language and culture.

What will they have to do to pass this test, I wonder.. Will they have to sing the national anthem? Will they have to quote the Divine Comedy? Will they have to cook polenta taragna? Perhaps they will have to prove they know how to become a Minister in Italy; how the university system is structured; how to deal with different sexual orientations; how the role of the modern woman impacts on Italian society; or other peculiar elements of the Italian culture.

Gelmini was keen to specify that, where this requirement is fulfilled, schools have the autonomy to accept more than 30%; likewise, if less than 30% shows proper knowledge of Italian culture, that will be as much as it is ‘allowed’ per class.

But why putting a cap? Why not simply saying “those who don’t pass the test, don’t go to our schools!” It is not clear why, even if one qualifies as Italian connoisseur, s/he cannot have access to a class because s/he is out of the 30%. Faced with the idea of a ‘limit’, one can’t help thinking that the message is that “there is a limit to our tolerance! Fine, you three come in, you 7 bugger off… Oh, look, she’s handing me a blank cheque…. You come in too, my little would-be Italian. You 6 go back to your countries and be ashamed.” And why 30%? Why not 50%?

Not that I like the idea of the test either. True, to go to the US or UK as an exchange student, one of the main requirements is to pass the infamous TOEFL test. However, that is higher education, whereas in the case of Italy we are talking of primary and secondary schools.. Mah.

What happens to those who do not fall in that 30%? Mariastella promises that transports will be provided to take those disadvantage kids to a special school everyday, and back home. She does not mention where the money to afford these expenses will arrive from. Nor is it clear what these schools will look like. Like ghettos, maybe?.. Given the level of openmindedness of the average Northern League voter, it is not hard to imagine what will happen to the 70% of foreign kids.

The main problem with this Government’s approach is that it is dramatically one-way: it is the Italians who are taking the foreigners on, and the latter ones are simply a burden. Once again, the idea of a “cap” seems to convey exactly this message: integration is still equated with grudging acceptance. No one mentions that a foreign student is also a resource, not just someone to whom we have to teach how to be a good Italian. It is undoubtedly true that multiculturalism faces (especially) Western countries with new demands: however, this process also has its rewards. How enriched would “our” kids be by sharing their desk at school with someone from a completely different background culture (and viceversa)?

But then, maybe, the Northern League would risk losing part of its supporters in the future. That might be one real cost of multicultural integration: would they be willing to pay it?

I wonder what their leader would reply..

When it comes to football, human beings are meant to be inclined to lose some of their basic social skills. In a sport that tends to focus on the result over than anything else, it is quite easy to get more concerned with pushing the ball into the goal and not on showing ‘a virtuous character’. In fact, for many people ‘virtue’ probably means ‘winning’.. Italy is not exception: rather, Italy is probably one of the main examples of this kind of approach to the ethics of football. We tend to get quite extreme (some would say simply ‘passionate’), though we are surely not too extreme.

So, what happened on last sunday during the Ascoli-Reggina match came as a surprise, and initiated an ongoing debate about what is right or wrong in football. At some point during the match, one player on Reggina’s side got injured: everyone, as it usually happens in cases like these, stopped playing so to let the guy come back on the pitch. However, one of Ascoli’s player, allegedly not noticing what was going on, kept running with the ball towards Reggina’s goal. He did not encounter any opposition from his opponents (the ref had not stopped the game though), so he carried on, and once in front of the goal he passed the ball a teammate, who scored. Reggina was not very happy with that kind of behaviour: a fight between the players started immediately after. Nonetheless, the ref validated the goal (which was, in fact, a valid goal).

But here is the coupe de theatre: after this dodgy goal, Ascoli’s coach, Bepi Pillon, told his guys to let Reggina make a goal, so to equalise the score. Thus, to the dismal of Ascoli’s supporters, the Regginians moved easily through Ascoli’s defence, the keeper did not move, Reggina scored. 1-1. A video of this surreal match is here.

Unfortunately this display of honesty did not help Ascoli win, and the match ended 3-1 for Reggina. Still, we were left with a somewhat refreshing message about the value of fair-play against what Weber called “the disenchantment of the world”. This was especially significant in this case, given that Ascoli is fighting to avoid relegation in Serie C and now, after this defeat, is closer to the abyss..

In fact the media are celebrating Ascoli’s act for its display of ‘fair play’. Even the Herald Tribune today dedicated an article to Pillon, suggesting he should be awarded the FIFA Fairplay Prize 2009. The only ones who were not delighted by Ascoli’s gesture were, unsurprisingly, Ascoli’s supporters.. Actually, they seemed to have been quite upset by the choice of letting Reggina score. When asked whether he would do it again, a sad Pillon replied “I don’t know”. Then he continued: “In Italy people make too much of these things. When I went abroad, I saw a different kind of football. Here, everything is so exasperated, too many interests, and too many situations that turn playing into pain, instead of joy.”

However, in a sport where you can qualify for the World Cup by openly cheating with your hands, and then pretend to be sorry, the case of Ascoli, a small team fighting for survival in Serie B, is to be praised.

Yet, I admit being happy that I am not an Ascoli supporter.. But I’m much, much happier, that I am not French.

New scandals have hit Italy.

I have to admit, it took me a while to choose which one to pick. Eventually, I went for the somewhat obvious, although even the following story carries with it something which is peculiarly ‘weird-italian’.

Italian politicians cannot do without sexual promiscuity, it seems. A couple of years ago, Sircana, the aid of Romano Prodi, the earlier Italian PM, was found hanging around prostitutes. Before him, Cosimo Mele, a member of the Catholic Party (God bless them), was charged with “drug-pushing” with a prostitute. Protected by God’s will, Mele rejected charges of being less than a good catholic. Needless to say, the actual Italian PM has lived up to these standards and, of course, pushed them further. He also defended his moral status against the charges of ‘imperfect morality’.

The last man on the list is Piero Marrazzo, the President of Lazio, one of Italy’s regions. He’s been hanging around prostitutes as well. Before getting into the details, let’s highlight one main difference between his case and the previous three: after the scandal became public, Marrazzo has resigned.

Italians know Piero Marrazzo for being the conductor of a famous Tv programme called “Mi manda Rai 3″. There he was the charming and aggressive defender of people’s rights against the greed of institutions which his program sought to bring to light. Here’s the man:

Then he entered politics with the Left, and became the President of  Lazio. As an effect of this, his skin turned slightly more orange:

On last July, Marrazo was caught in a ‘mercenary intercourse’ by four members of Carabinieri , a branch of Italy armed forces. That is to say, guys who are there to protect civilians. However, these Carabinieri were less interested in protecting civilians and more in extorting money from them.

The guys’ names are Luciano Simeone, Carlo Tagliente, Antonio Tamburrino e Nicola Testini.

They broke into the apartment of Brenda, a transsexual prostitute, where Marrazzo was carrying out the mercenary ordeal: they filmed what was going on, and started threatening Marrazzo with the dire consequences waiting for him, unless he paid. And pay he did: three 20000Euro checks have been signed by the Lazio President to silence the Fab 4, and protect his career.

Unfortunately, greed is a green-eyed monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on, said Shakespeare. Hence the scandal became public nevertheless. In the last days, Marrazzo had to account for his behaviour on tv, and finally confessed that ‘his weaknesses’ had come out. He eventually resigned today, thus leaving Italy’s Left, where possible, in an increased state of confusion. It has also emerged that Marrazzo is to retire in a monastery to recover from the stress.

Investigators say Marrazzo has been the victim of blackmail, hence he is the plaintiff in the charge against the Fab 4 Carabinieri. This seems fair. He will not be charged for going to meet his prostitutes using the “blue car”, the official car politicians use for their work. The reason is that the blue car is for the politician to go wherever s/he wants. Even ”a puttane”, as they say in Italy. Here’s a ‘blu car’:  

(And, for completeness, here’s a puttana:)

One thing seems to have gone unnoticed in this over-noticed story. The Fab 4, in their relentless effort to raise money to support justice in Italy and abroad, had tried to sell the videotape of Marrazzo and Brenda to Italian magazines. Now, when it comes to Italian Press, and to those who own and control it, this man is very likely to appear:

It has turned out that Berlusconi, who vicariously owns the Mondadori publishing house (the official owner is his daughter), had been informed by the staff of the magazine  Chi that they were being offered the video. Silvio allegedly warned Marrazzo of the situation, and reassured him that the video would have not appeared on Chi.

Many people lauded Berlusconi’s behaviour as gentlemanly. Or, at least, so the news described it. Yet almost no one, in Italy,  seems to have focused on a bizarre element. The only exception seems to be an article on the Italian newspaper La Stampa (thanks to my sister who has pointed that to me). The article tries to reconstruct the Marrazzo’affaire by highlighting some of its central features. First, the fact that a political member of the Left was found with a prostitute. Second,that the film was then offered to the media. Third, that the media are owned by the Prime Minister, leader of the Right, who can decide whether to publish those images (and, by the way, profit from that). Fourth, that Berlusconi didn’t use that film (the official reply from the Mondadori has been that, after watching the video, they did not find it interesting). But he could have, if it had been about something more convenient for him. In this particular case, he ended up using Marrazzo’s misadventure to underline the terrible situation in which Italian politicians have to work, under the constant risk of being bribed by some anti-democratic photographers. Still, he is in the place to decide what goes and what does not go in the press.

No one finds that strange, in Italy. Anymore.