Italy’s Public Broadcaster Has Been Turned Into Propaganda Machine

Sign up for The Media Today, CJR’s daily newsletter.

Historically, RAI, Italy’s public broadcaster, has always been subject to government control. During the political era dominated by Silvio Berlusconi, the late media mogul turned three-time prime minister, for example, the infamous “Bulgarian Diktat” caused an uproar: following a declaration by Berlusconi, management effectively removed the journalist Enzo Biagi, anchor Michele Santoro, and satirist Daniele Luttazzi—three of the most prominent and critical voices of the then–prime minister—from public TV altogether.

Today, under the right-wing prime minister Giorgia Meloni, efforts to align RAI with the government’s agenda have been seen as even more pervasive—the broadcaster has undergone a series of radical transformations, often referred to using the shorthand TeleMeloni. A monologue in which the writer Antonio Scurati was set to criticize Italy’s “post-fascist” leaders for failing to repudiate their neofascist origins was canceled; so, too, was the second season of Roberto Saviano’s investigative series Insider, with critics interpreting both decisions as attempts to suppress dissenting voices. Several high-profile figures have left. Fabio Fazio, the host of the immensely popular talk show Che tempo che fa (“What’s the Weather Like?”), moved his program to a private network owned by the American company Warner Bros. Discovery, where it continues to attract millions of viewers. Bianca Berlinguer transitioned her flagship program, Cartabianca (“Carte Blanche”), to Rete 4, a conservative network that is part of the media empire founded by Berlusconi.

Among the most notable resignations was that of Lucia Annunziata, a seasoned political journalist and host of acclaimed television programs. (Among other things, she founded and led the Italian edition of HuffPost.) Annunziata served as RAI’s chairperson from 2003 to 2004, when she resigned amid escalating tensions with Berlusconi’s administration; she continued to host a political interview program, In mezz’ora (“Half an Hour”), and in 2006 made headlines when Berlusconi walked out of her studio following a heated exchange about his conflicts of interest as both a media mogul and a politician. In May 2023, she resigned from RAI, claiming that she did not agree with “anything about the work of the current government, either on content or methods.” 

After she quit, Annunziata transitioned from media to politics for the first time, running for a seat in the European Parliament; this year, she was elected as an MEP with the Democratic Party. Explaining her decision, she said, “the situation in Italy had become so polarized that I felt it was the right time to do something different and contribute in another way.” Recently, I spoke with Annunziata—her first interview about RAI since resigning—and discussed her decision, the impact of Meloni on Italian journalism, and the “almost messianic anticipation” of Donald Trump on the European political right. Our conversation, conducted in Italian and translated, has been edited for length and clarity.

SB: How would you describe the impact of the Meloni government on press freedom and the state of journalism in Italy?

LA: Overwhelming, in the sense that Meloni has implemented significant, and at times very abrupt, changes at RAI. She sent a clear message of wanting to establish a new cultural hegemony, which I think is her right as the election winner, given that Italian law grants the head of government the authority to appoint RAI’s two top executives. However, the way it was done—lacking grace and with a very polemical approach—does not seem particularly successful to me, either in terms of viewership or cultural hegemony. I don’t think the [political] right has emerged stronger from this change. When it comes to newspapers, the government has been highly active in empowering a new network of aligned publishers to counterbalance the more established independent papers. Both actions have contributed to the perception of a climate of fear surrounding opposition to the Meloni government.

Why has Meloni adopted this strategy?

Meloni envisions cultural hegemony as a tool. According to her interpretation, the left maintained its cultural dominance over RAI through “favoritism,” and now it is time to impose a new right-wing hegemony. This is partially accurate, as the left has shaped cultural trends for years. However, this dominance never excluded a significant presence of the right in the media and RAI. During Berlusconi’s two decades of power and influence, his coalition had a strong foothold in RAI and was often in a position of control. Part of his coalition included the political party Movimento Sociale Italiano, the direct heir of traditional, pro-Mussolini fascism.

Meloni’s party has a different tradition. It represents a right-wing movement rooted in various factions that emerged from the disruptive experiences of the 1970s—not extremist, but certainly outside the system. Despite this history of significant control over RAI, Meloni’s current strategy does not appear to be working. Viewership is down and many programs have failed. For me, this is painful. I spent twenty-six years at RAI. It’s an important part of my life, and I deeply regret what is happening.

Was your decision to leave RAI an act of protest or a personal necessity to preserve your journalistic independence?

Both. I’ve always believed that when you disagree with your publisher, or employer, and are treated poorly, it’s your responsibility to leave. I consider myself a specialist in resignations for this reason. This is the third time I have resigned from RAI: I stepped down from the editorship of the newscast TG3 in 1998 and from the position of RAI president in 2004. This time, I left because I knew what was coming and expressed my disagreement in a statement. I knew the right was determined to reclaim its cultural hegemony through RAI and that my contract would not be renewed. I chose to leave immediately and to voice my disagreement, preserving my freedom.

Was the impact of the Meloni government more radical than other governments or in line with them?

It was different during Berlusconi’s time. Despite his political and electoral dominance in Parliament and his conflicts of interest in the media system—at one point, he controlled four out of five RAI board members—he never sought to wipe the slate clean. That is the key difference with Meloni. Berlusconi did not aim to erase everything else, whereas Meloni seems to have a more radical vision in this regard. I had fierce clashes with Berlusconi. After the interview where he walked out, there was significant anger against me within his party. We didn’t speak for five years until he called me to his office. He was no longer prime minister. I asked him, “Are you still angry with me?” He replied, “No, we both did our jobs—you did yours, and I did mine.”

Berlusconi’s right was more liberal: it dominated the media but still allowed space for other voices. In contrast, Meloni’s right-wing cultural hegemony seems intent on minimizing those spaces, driven by a sense of victimhood. They believe they represent the outcasts, having been excluded from the system for years. There is a note of Trumpism in this mindset. It’s a right-wing movement fueled by revanchism—a desire for retribution—that makes its approach more rigid and totalizing than in the past.

Is there still room for journalists who want to address uncomfortable topics at RAI?

Yes, because RAI has journalists of great value, both on the right and the left. Historically, RAI has always been a place where efforts were made to represent all political forces through the practice of lottizzazione, a system designed to allocate space to all parties according to their political relevance. Today, there are still quality programs. However, the space for journalism has been reduced, and it operates in an atmosphere that is less tolerant of ideological diversity.

Do you believe that the new right-wing movements at the European and international levels are following common patterns in how they relate to the free press?

In Europe, one of the key priorities of neo-authoritarian governments is to restrict press freedom, particularly targeting public and alternative media. This trend began in Eastern European countries and has gradually spread westward. [Hungarian prime minister Viktor] Orbán is an emblematic example, but far from the only one. Today, the right holds significant influence in the European Parliament, and in many countries, press freedom has been notably curtailed. These new autocracies share common values and strategies. On the international stage, Trump is a central figure in this movement, serving as both a model and an inspiration. In Europe, there is an almost messianic anticipation of Trump among right-wing governments, who see him as both a savior and an innovator. The press remains one of the main battlegrounds in this cultural conflict, a decisive arena for shaping the future of Europe and beyond.

What motivated you to enter politics after such a long and established career in journalism? Was it a decision carefully considered over time or a response to current pressures?

I resigned from RAI a year before my contract expired. I honored the non-compete agreement for a year and managed my departure with fairness, avoiding any issues. After a year away, I decided that the best way to continue contributing to the public debate was to turn to politics in Europe. The situation in Italy has become so polarized that I felt it was the right time to take a different path and make my contribution in a new area.

Other notable stories:

• Recently, the satirical site The Onion announced that it had acquired Alex Jones’s conspiracy empire InfoWars in an auction stemming from judgments against Jones in defamation cases brought by families of the victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting, which Jones has said repeatedly was a hoax; the families supported The Onion’s bid, which was aimed at turning InfoWars into a parody of itself. A judge, however, paused the sale, citing transparency concerns about the bidding process—and yesterday, he rejected the deal, essentially for that reason. A court-appointed trustee will determine what happens next. The Onion said it would continue to seek a resolution in its favor.  

• And—after police identified a suspect in the recent assassination of the CEO of the health insurance firm UnitedHealthcare in New York—404 Media’s Jason Koebler criticized the rush to write stories piecing together every scrap of the shooter’s online presence, including an article noting that he played the wildly popular (and murdery) video game Among Us. This fact “is about as relevant as saying that he breathes air or eats food or sleeps sometimes,” Koebler writes. Knowing who the shooter was matters, but “it’s not clear what we are actually learning from years-old social media accounts.”

Sacha Biazzo is a Delacorte fellow at CJR.