Italy: the strange death of TV reform

Rome, 22 October 2008

In a debate chaired by Eurovisioni’s Luciana Castellina and moderated by Marco Mele from the daily newspaper Sole 24 Ore, Miriam Anati of EUMAP introduced the Television across Europe 2008 project. Marius Dragomir of the Media Program then presented the key findings, drawing on a comparative analysis of broadcasting in nine countries. He spoke about the aggressive politicisation of broadcast regulators and public service broadcasters, and the impact of recent shifts in media economics.

Giulio Enea Vigevani, who co-authored the Italy chapter with Gianpietro Mazzoleni, stressed that “the Italian anomaly” has not disappeared. Describing the failed attempts to reform the broadcasting sector, he particularly criticised the stalemate since the fall of the Prodi government in January 2008. While other countries in Europe have seen shifts in the advertising revenue and audience shares of the main broadcasters, Italian broadcasting continues to be dominated by two players: public service RAI and Berlusconi’s Mediaset.

In response, Prodi’s minister of communications, Paolo Gentiloni, remarked that it was difficult to foresee the current Parliament amending the law - as the opposition argues it should – to increase competition on the highly concentrated and politicised broadcast market.

The only major change in recent years has been the rise of the satellite TV operator Sky, representing the largest American investment in the country. Both RAI and Mediaset are making life as difficult as they can for Sky and other new entrants. As a result, Sky has not yet dented the level of concentration in the broadcast market. It takes only some 3 per cent of the total TV advertising spend. Meanwhile, RAI faces a loss of income as advertising slowly migrates to Mediaset. This is happening for political rather than economic reasons, he said; for advertisers want to be closer to government.

Mr. Gentiloni said that RAI needs to be reformed if it is to have any chance of offering quality programs. In Italy as elsewhere, the public service broadcaster should be leading the way in technological innovation. However, Berlusconi’s government has repeatedly shown that it is no friend of public service broadcasting; for example, it took the blatantly political decision to reject a subsidy for RAI’s transition to digital broadcasting. He concluded that the opposition has to wage these battles more aggressively and convincingly.

Paolo Gambescia, the  director of Il Messaggero newspaper, stressed that the central purpose of any broadcasting reform should be nothing less than the redefinition of cultural values in Italian society.

Franco Siddi, from the journalists’ trade union FNSI, took issue with one of the report’s findings, namely that local TV stations represent a guarantee for diversity. “Having a large number of local TV stations does not mean diversity and pluralism,” Mr. Siddi said. Unless they are  professional and independent, these stations do not play such a positive role. Mr Vigevani said in reply that in some regions, such as Milan, local TV stations are able, within limits, to provide quite an important amount of diverse and objective information and news.

In conclusion, Professor Antonio Nicita (University of Siena) said that no investor will venture into Italy’s concentrated broadcast market without effective ceilings on market shares, both to restore balance to the analogue market and to prevent the perpetuation of today’s distortions after digital switchover.