Of Enrica Perucchietti
Source: polysemantics
Continues “5 requests“, the series of interviews with intellectuals, journalists, communicators and thinkers on the future of Rai, on its importance in social and political life and on its influence on the perception of reality by the viewing public.
Today he responds to 5 requests Enrica Perucchietti, journalist, writer, university teacher, radio and television presenter.

He has written various essays including Fake News – From the manipulation of public opinion to post-truth: how power controls the media and fabricates information to obtain consensus, with preface by Marcello Foa and edited byblog of the same name
•What does Rai promise that is being born? Is this really a change or are we seeing a re-presentation, as per Gatpardesca memory, of "that everything changes so that everything remains as it is"?

I honestly don't know how much it will change: an entire system that is now gangrenous would have to be subverted and I don't think this is yet possible and above all not in a short time.
From what I understand they are working on the schedule 2020, No hiring is planned, if anything, a progressive internal reorganization. I have faith in President Foa, who is a dear friend, but one man alone certainly cannot transmute lead into gold. Suffice it to say that everything he says or does is under the spotlight with the press and politicsmainstreamready to judge and condemn any of his missteps and to exploit his declarations. Imagine what it might be like to work in such a climate…
However, the new president has promised less politics and more meritocracy and I am sure he will start from this point. I hope he can find trusted and capable collaborators who can accompany him in this difficult task.
•Entertainment and fiction risk altering the public's perception of reality or is it sufficient to act on the truthfulness and pluralism of information, objectively managing the news?

Right, propaganda now also and above all takes place through entertainment: TV series, fiction, film, talk show. As some golden rules of social manipulation teach, entertainment can be used to manipulate the masses better than the media.
The show serves to distract public opinion by diverting its attention from important problems and changes decided from above, through the deluge technique or inundation of continuous “distractions” and insignificant information; it can serve to gradually introduce some uncomfortable issues into public opinion in order to "normalise" them; it can serve to reinforce some typical propaganda slogans and ultimately stimulate the public to be complacent with mediocrity. It is no coincidence that reality shows are so popular everywhere.
Over the years the public has increasingly been pushed to believe that it is fashionable to be stupid, vulgar and ignorant. I reality show, trashy TV and the imposition of increasingly trashy models, especially to the younger ones, serves to flatten public opinion on increasingly vulgar aesthetic and cultural canons, effectively making them a model to be admired and imitated. We should reverse this trend in order to relaunch the value of culture, of art and information especially in the new generations.
•The cultural aspect, meaning with this term the dissemination of knowledge relating to Art, to History, to Literature, could affect the public's perception of reality?
Certainly, and this is why television in general offers less and less space for cultural content, preferring to broadcast so-called junk TV on the main channels or in the best time slots. The public is now accustomed to low-level content or turns to web platforms for entertainment, cinema and TV series in streaming.
•It will be enough to renew the contents or it will be necessary to rethink the "modus agendi" of the hosts and presenters? In other words, it is possible to influence viewers, as well as with fake news also with tone of voice, facial expression, use of synonyms with different semantic connotations and other similar tricks?

Certainly, there are presenters who are too biased and seem to be commentators rather than journalists: you can understand their orientation from the type of questions, from the look, from rude or mellifluous responses to guests, from the looks, how much time do they give to one guest versus another etc.
One of the problems of public TV is not so much censorship, as much as the way in which certain topics are treated, through the hosts themselves or the calibrated choice of the same guests who play the role of "snipers": that is, they are concerned with denigrating, silence, discredit those who try to place themselves outside of single thought and narrativemainstream.
Today it is useless to go on television to talk about "uncomfortable" issues because you simply end up being ridiculed. Ilway of doing thingsof these conductors (and the authors) it simply serves to anchor propaganda slogans in public opinion, to carry out terrorism on some issues and to shift attention from "untouchable" issues.
•What impact would it give to Rai if it were able to decide autonomously??

I would focus on meritocracy and high-level cultural content. From a purely commercial point of view, I would modernize it: from talk shows to television news (especially the regional ones) It's an old, boring way of making TV, there are few programs that manage to wink at young people too. We also need to be more present on the web: the network represents the greatest challenge for television today.
RAI should provide information in a more widespread and immediate way also on the internet and reach with programs everywhere, daltabletto cell phones, in a simpler and more direct way. However, it should maintain the quality of the audiovisual content (from filming to editing) which are missing on other channels.
More generally I would like a RAI with fewer recommended people and more capable and motivated people (hello beautiful, I know many who find themselves fighting with the information barons or the dinosaurs who have been roaming around the company for decades). I would like a pluralist public service capable of offering cultural programs and interesting insights, documentaries, journalistic investigations and calm debates in which spectacularization is not given priority (to lie down, he shouts at her, the gossip) to the content.
Some guests/all-rounders who are invited (ask yourself why they are always the same!) to create tension and chaos in the studio they should be avoided. And above all, just reality: they are the exaltation of mediocrity. I believe we can go back to offering an objective public service, fair, of good taste and quality but to do it it takes years and it takes people who believe in it and are ready to roll up their sleeves, encountering internal wars, tug-of-war and chaotic reactions on the part of that old system which certainly does not want to abandon the position it has managed to maintain for so long.
SOURCE: http://polisemantica.blogspot.com/2018/12/la-nuova-rai-in-cinque-domande-enrica.html