“La Nove wants to be like the beginning of Canale 5”

There is a better profile than Carlo Freccero to talk to about television? Answer: no. Starting from his intervention in the Netflix docufilm “The Young Berlusconi”, we discussed his programming philosophy, always inspired by McLuhan’s lesson, more relevant than ever: the medium is the message. A lesson that the group must also know well Warner Bros. Discoveryready to leave with his new television hub in which Freccero reviews the steps of the birth of Canale 5: “La Nove wants to be like the beginning of Canale 5 and therefore wants to think only of entertainment and advertising. Information? It would complicate the architecture of the network. Better to focus on sports information, already having Eurosport”. There group strategy: “Building a generalist TV platform while waiting for the future: the possible privatization of a Rai network, for example. They will be ready.” The conversation also touches on hot topics such as political dynamics that influence public television: “Rai has lost the possibility of valorising itself on a media level, as a generalist television, with the Renzi reform which has radically distorted its function”.

“It wasn’t my critical judgment that I liked. I shouldn’t have existed. For me, only those little numbers mattered.” Freccero says this in “Il Giovane Berlusconi” regarding audience data and his first encounter with the logic of commercial television.

I would like to immediately clarify a point that perhaps the documentary does not delve into. I was contacted in 1979 to order the Titanus catalog for my expertise of cinephile (I had curated a national review of the director Raffaello Matarazzo with Tatti Sanguineti, Mimmo Lombezzi, Adriano Aprà, Aldo Grasso and other prestigious critics), but I was put under contract by Fininvest because I had suggested a television use of the catalog itself.

How?

Dividing it by genre and programming the genres in the weekly and daily schedule, I gave films that could not be individually programmed on TV a sort of seriality aimed at gaining the loyalty of fans of detective stories, polar films, sentimental comedies and so on to the network. What does it mean? That as a media scholar and not just a cinema enthusiast, I have always preceded my operational choices with an analysis of the medium. I have always been faithful to McLuhan’s motto: the medium is the message and I have always been very clear about the differences in media. The awareness of the cinema/television difference allowed me to enter the French media debate at the time of the Cinq. Godard unexpectedly visited me in the office to discuss colonized films. But right from the origins of my work at the birth of Canale 5, I was very clear that to be successful it was necessary to work on the differences between public service and generalist commercial television. In this regard, I wrote the essay “Television, use value and exchange value” in Il Manifesto (later contested by Rossanda) in 1983, which was then a staple of television criticism, even if the source was often not cited.

For example?

Working on media differences is the only programming method that, in my opinion, can have meaning. It is no coincidence that in my book “Television” I write that we should not talk about television, but about televisions, because the changes in the medium over the years (introduction of the remote control, multiplication of networks, audience survey, multimedia integration) make them different media . Working on specific differences is essential for results. A corkscrew is a great tool for getting corks out of bottles, but it doesn’t work as a hammer. Each network has its vocation, not a practical one, but a media one.

“Rai has lost the opportunity to enhance itself with the Renzi reform”

As for current issues, I would ask you about Amadeus leaving Rai but first I would ask you about this climate surrounding the presenter’s exit from public service. Whether this climate, this exodus from Fazio onwards, is the result of an instrumental narrative to attack the Government or whether there is actually an invasive presence. In short, Freccero, I ask you: does TeleMeloni exist or not?

Giving a political, or rather partisan, interpretation of a structural problem does not seem like a good idea to me. The wise man points to the Moon, but the mainstream looks at his finger. The problem is not Amadeus or the contingent choices, but the Rai reform which effectively decreed its end. Rai has lost the possibility of valorising itself on a media level, as a generalist television, with the Renzi reform which radically distorted its function. The cause is not to be found in today’s government or in previous or subsequent governments, but concerns its current function. With this latest reform, Rai, which already depended on Parliament and, therefore, on politics in a broad sense, passes to the direct dependence of the Government. And it’s not the same thing. But this vision of Rai being employed by the government can only generate propaganda. The first connection he suggests is with totalitarian regimes in which communication is entirely subservient to propaganda. He is therefore surprised that the Renzi reform has passed in silence while today its real repercussions are criticized. In practice the TV criticism turns from mediological to partisan. The opposition does not criticize the government’s subjugation. He would simply like to regain the propaganda in his favor. All this to the detriment of the audience which is the reference system of every generalist television. Rai is in crisis because programs that work are repressed in favor of ideologically oriented broadcasts. The professionals who work on audience, product and advertising resource results are, at this point, not very “usable” by the System (we could say incompatible with the System). I have always been a defender of the Public Service when I thought it could disseminate independent, or at least pluralist, information. First of all, Rai, as a remnant of the European public service based on cultural capital, has long since lost its justification with the disappearance of cultural capital itself. The subsequent justification as an independent source of information was canceled by the reform of the centre-left Renzi government. Faced with television as propaganda, a TV that develops its media potential and explores multimedia is still preferable.

“La Nove has already undermined the Rai-Mediaset duopoly”

Speaking of this, where is Discovery at with the construction of the Third TV Pole?

Discovery has already, at least potentially, undermined the logic of the Rai-Mediaset duopoly for a series of reasons in its favor. Television, which was born locally, today finds itself increasingly having to deal with globalization. Discovery is the local expression of a multimedia power like Warner, and this multimedia represents its second strong point. If we then return to Rai and its dependence on the Italian government, this can only be a limitation that limits the audience to a sort of national gossip. Everything is read in this key. If we think that Amadeus was fined in Sanremo for hidden advertising on Instagram, we understand the limitation of the debate (are we still analogue?). Today, interacting with social media represents the future of generalist television.

And the information? There is talk of the purchase of the La7 newspaper.

The information would complicate the network architecture. La Nove wants to be like the beginning of Canale 5 and therefore wants to focus only on entertainment and advertising. Perhaps priority should be given to sports information. Discovery has its passport in order with Eurosport and since Amazon wants to buy a lot of football, you will certainly see a very strong battle.

But can Nove become the opposition’s stool?

No, Nine is not interested in this. Fazio has an audience that represents the cultural area of ​​politically correct progressive thought. They knew that by taking it they were taking away a safe audience. The Americans took it as if it were a blockade, but they are not interested in Fazio’s information. They don’t adhere to Fazio’s philosophy, they adhere to Fazio’s success. Right now, they just want to build a big generalist TV platform, waiting for surprises.

On Fazio: “The Americans took it as if it were a blockade, but they are not interested in Fazio’s information. They don’t adhere to Fazio’s philosophy, they adhere to Fazio’s success.”

What kind of surprises?

If a Rai network is privatized, for example, they get there straight away. If Cairo’s network fails, they’ll get there right away. They know that generalist TV will have a future and they are waiting for the future. For this reason, they are building a center of attraction with safe programmes: Crozza with satire which gets 6% of the audience and has a large audience on the web; Fazio who makes 10% and has a large audience on the web. Now there’s Amadeus. He will make a horizontal strip and make a program that will have a lot of audience on social media. They told me they already have the format ready for him. Amadeus knows how to mix the traditional and the new, he is the best of all. But going back to the Nine, they go into blocks and that’s why I tell you that the information block is premature. If they really had to take another block, they would be more interested in the Fagnani one.

Returning to what he said before, we need someone who can bring the two most important means into dialogue: TV and the internet.

Exact. This is why I say that on the issue of La7 information, perhaps someone is playing with it to strategize, to increase the salary (which perhaps Cairo has the short arm).

In closing, returning to public service: what problem does the right have with the planning and organization of culture? What’s your problem with television?

The reason is simple. The priority was to fill the seats, they haven’t worked on the TV yet. They covered up the information, that’s the mistake. Now, we have to wait what happens now with the new restructuring. They were overwhelmed by the desire to occupy everything. It is a problem of the character of men, not of philosophies. They have the people, but not the leaders. This is the big problem. Berlusconi, for example, used people who were not Berlusconi to do what he did.