Harry, Meghan, populism and the journalist caste
Italics by Teo Dalavecuras
A long time ago, in the happy but irremediably past years of university, I met a person of whom I remember only a singular habit: although a great football fan, he had never set foot in a stadium and cultivated his passion by listening to the commentaries of the matches.
This memory resurfaced days ago. Already intrigued by the love story of prince Harry and Meghan Markle, especially by that sort of "liquidation" that – if I am not misunderstood – Queen Elizabeth had granted them while allowing the golden aviary of the dynasty to open – at the request of the lovebirds. Windsor in which the couple had rashly got themselves caged years ago, I could not miss the "explosive" ( sic ) interview granted by Meghan to the famous American journalist Oprah Winfrey.
I listened and diligently read the news of the event and some in-depth analyzes, but for some reason I missed the thing itself, the interview, although available on free television channels. My claim to develop an opinion and – even worse, express it – on this subject is therefore philologically inadmissible. But, in the "liquid society", pursuing philological rigor even before arousing laughter would be unnecessarily pretentious.
I found two analyzes of the media event particularly illuminating, the enviable somewhat psychedelic prose by Guia Soncini for Linkiesta and that, of incomparable aplomb , of the interview granted by Antonio Caprarica, the legendary Rai correspondent from London, to Linda Varlese for Huffpost . I transcribe a passage for each.
Soncini : "If one day you were to explain the victimization industry, you can tell that you have seen the interview for which two determined not to work at all – not even to do that job that is smiling on command because you are part of a royal family – they are defended in their fragility by the average public: people who will work all their lives, and in their free time entertain themselves with the emotional blackmail of multimillionaires ".
When asked "What could have pushed Meghan to this clear rejection of real life?", Caprarica replies : "The reason is that she realized when she entered the royal family that it is governed by the birthright, that is, all the cucuzzaro goes to the firstborn. . If he had studied more he would have discovered that England is the only country in the world where the majority is still in force ”.
Two judgments light-hearted in form but very little empathic (do you say so?) In substance.
On Tg7 on the evening of the interview, I heard Enrico Mentana mention – with the composed tone but sharing of who is about to announce the report on the magnitude 6 earthquake recorded a few hours earlier – the interview and if I remember correctly also the digital terrestrial channel on which it was about to air in Italy (perhaps this is the reason why I continued to follow the event at a respectful distance, through some comments from professional observers of the daily affair).
It would be hypocritical to deny the vein of irony, but this does not concern either the legendary Oprah or Mentana, a highly skilled journalist; not even the protagonists of the story who, at most, arouse a bit of curiosity and who, in any case, take advantage of the situation like any ordinary mortal. The irony is motivated by the serious, if not downright denouncing tone with which the mainstream media dealt with the story.
The media treatment of the interview with Meghan is one example among many of the "populist" modality that marks, in an increasingly pervasive way in the last thirty years, communication on a global level, a communication widely deployed on positions that are said to be "progressive ”, Which as a whole claims to hate populism and tirelessly denounces it. It wouldn't be a problem, if it were just a misleading saying: no one is so unreasonable as to expect media insiders to call things by their name. The fact is that the support of the progressive media, the overwhelming majority, for the populist cause is nothing casual. The five-star movement would not have obtained not 33, but not even 3 per cent of the popular vote, if its provocations had not been able to count from the beginning (also) on the sounding board of the most authoritative media outlets (in addition to one without claims of authority but entirely dedicated to the cause), and a TV channel available, and especially if it had not been preceded by the pounding advertising campaign against the "Casta" and by the judicial campaign of Mani Pulite against the government parties. Then, of course, M5S was domesticated and deployed against the "populists" and now, for the leaders of the movement – at least officially Beppe Grillo and Giuseppe Conte – it would be a question of defining with the heir of Roberto Casaleggio, the theorist of anti- five-star elite deceased for a few years, the conditions of mutual separation: a matter of change and mailing list, if I understand correctly.
No contradictions, of course, but only a lot of unscrupulousness. After all, that everything must change so that nothing changes is an old story. One can only wonder if this game, now a bit too cheeky for too long, does not involve some risk even for those who lead it, and it is not "mere mortals".
Publishing houses and the "caste" of journalists have already paid a considerable price.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/mondo/harry-meghan-il-populismo-e-la-casta-dei-giornalisti/ on Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:54:28 +0000.