Framing and re-framing.

I am reading about the story of Di Maio apologizing to people subjected to media lynching, and I am honestly wondering what the difference is between the face and the ass of the journalist who writes the article.

There are several things to remember about it.

The first is that the “wild boar hunt” in Italy certainly does not begin with Di Maio and M5S attacking the mayor of Lodi. And it doesn't even begin with the left lynching Berlusconi, ONLY guilty of having had parties with orgy outside Rome, without inviting all parties.

This habit of lynching in the public square is much older, and if you really want to attribute it to populists, then you will have to admit (and I am referring to those who today make a case, on average left) that they were populists, if not of still be.

For example, it is not clear why the left-leaning newspapers are getting stuck on a process that is, after all, secondary if not irrelevant, which due to health conditions will have a suspended sentence, such as Berlusconi's Ruby Ter trial. But what I see is this.

The #metoo part obviously takes advantage of it to talk about the minister who saw private phone calls slapped on the front page (as if it were the first, and as if they had not banged invented phone calls on the front pages, as with the story of " culona inchiavabile ”, which was NEVER uttered in ANY phone call ever recorded).

The truth is that if di Maio apologized for one or two media lynchings, many other parties should spend their time whipping each other on the back for penance, but they don't. It would cost them too much to admit to being like the "inferiors" of the M5S.

The MYTH of the superhumanity, or of anthropological difference, of the left prevents them from admitting that they are ultimately very similar to the "right".

But there is a problem that is not addressed here: the role of the press in lynchings. When the minister's private phone calls ended up in the newspapers, did Di Maio put them there?

Who, after listening to the phone calls, decided to publish them, was an executive of M5S, or an executive of a newspaper?

Even Grillo, who will soon find himself lynched because of his son (Buongiorno accepts only won causes), knows that the press has already pronounced his verdict. They already have the articles written, both in the case of victory and defeat.

It will also be said that it is Grillo's fault, but the lynching of the wild boar on duty certainly did not start with Grillo. And it's definitely not his invention.

I clearly remember the period of Clean Hands, when daily newspaper reading consisted of what Orwell would have called "the two minutes of hatred".

And I don't think I have to give Grillo the patent of the thing: and the only thing in common between all these lynchings is a systematic defamation of the newspapers.

We also omit events such as the story of the "culona inchiavabile"; which was invented from scratch by newspapers. A famous Italian newspaper invented listening to wiretaps, and almost created a diplomatic incident by saying that he heard Berlusconi insult Merkel. When, years and years later, the wiretaps were heard in court, there was no trace of those invectives. They were pure invention.

And if we open a dossier and dig into the articles that trigger the lynching, we always find things in common.

• they insist on some very expensive hobby of the victim. "The minister with the hobby of diamonds", "the minister with the hobby of millionaire executives", "the mayor with the hobby of vintage cars", and so on.

Then it turns out that the person has ONE ring with a diamond, but someone saw a picture of him with the ring on his finger. Then it turns out that the guy has an old car, and it becomes "vintage". Etc.

It is a question of mounting an antipathy against the person, titillating the envy of people who are struggling to make ends meet.

• the treasure". When someone is arrested, there is always "the treasure". Everyone has a "treasure".

Too bad that these "treasures" are NEVER found, and there are not even any papers of the investigation. In the end, everything that is seized was in the arrested person's house, and little more: but a myth of the "treasure" is ALWAYS created.

Mani Pulite arrested / ended up in the newspapers about 2600 people. Six hundred of these did not even end up in court. About 1300 were condemned. In all cases, there was talk of "hidden treasures". An economist came to estimate the round of bribes that Mani Pulite was touching at ten thousand billion lire.

How many of these treasures were recovered? Do you remember Craxi's 100 billion lire treasure?

Well, the state remained little more than what was seized from the homes of those arrested. The bribe that started the whole investigation, in fact, amounted to 10% of one hundred and forty million lire, that is, fourteen million lire. Seven thousand euros.

The "treasures" never existed.

• scandalous sexual habits. it is since the time of De Michelis that everything and more has been said about the arrested politicians. Then Berlusconi arrived and the newspapers learned that the accused looks worse if there is a lot of sex. For the younger defendants, it was all a "find child pornography images on his computer".

The human species is not a monogamous species. After all, recent research on swans shows that they form pairs but fuck left and right , so it's no surprise. But one thing that makes people obnoxious to bigots is when they fuck too much.

And this is obvious: with 80% of couples who are de facto companies born to optimize the economy, everyone is afraid of losing a partner and ending up in economic disaster. A guy who fucks a lot is a danger to any couple, ditto a girl.

So, as soon as an arrested person shows any interest in sex, he immediately becomes the dirty one.

And when an investigation goes on and on, to keep the front pages the prosecutors always find "child pornography images" on their computers. In reality, these are images and caches of porn films, in which the actresses do not show their identity cards. The investigations then end up in nothing.

Moral: when an investigation speaks of "hidden treasure" of "expensive habits" and "abject sex life", you can start from the CERTAINTY that the accused is INNOCENT.

In fact, when there is fat, there is no need to use "the method": if you take the investigation into the collapse of the cable car, or other inquiries on really relevant things, you do not see these things.

They are not exploiting our shit with the hidden treasure of the cable car operator, or with his expensive and middle-class habits (someone mentioned an SUV, but obviously there is no fury, now even your builder has an SUV for leasing) , or with his sexual conduct.

Here is the meat, so you don't need "the method".

So, the real question is: okay, Di Maio apologized, but you journalists, when will you abandon "the method"?

Also because sooner or later people will begin to notice a singular coincidence: among the "wild boars" to be lynched, magistrates and journalists are a category, how to say … "protected".