Italian journalism does not show a great deal of transparency (Mazzoleni & Splendore, 2011; Splendore, 2017b) and does not include specific procedures for news selection or accountability instruments. For instance, the introduction of press councils or newspapers’ ombudspersons has hardly been on the agenda of domestic media players, and only two ombudsperson initiatives have been put in place. Il Messaggero, Rome’s most important daily, initiated the first in 1986, and la Repubblica appointed a prominent journalist as ombudsman, Piero Ottone, former editor of il Corriere della Sera. Both efforts, prompted by the wish to imitate foreign experiences, did not last long, because of a scarcity of contributions from the readers, but also because the ombudsperson was (and is) generally perceived as an odd institution in the Italian political and cultural context (Mazzoleni & Splendore, 2011: 91).
There is an overabundance of codes of ethics in Italy, concerning topics like minors and immigration. However, those codes are not compulsory or widely respected (Brinkmann et al., 2017) and, when violated, there are no strict sanctions on journalists. The opacity in the use of codes of ethics implies that it is very difficult to evaluate the scope of newsrooms’ internal debates. Research based on legacy newsrooms (Splendore, 2013, 2017a; Splendore & Rega, 2017) and our interviews with journalists show that the most established newsrooms especially do not leave much space for debate. The Worlds of Journalism Study shows that Italian journalists perceive having little autonomy in deciding which topics to work on and which frames to use for their news.
This scenario seems to be largely confirmed by the interviews conducted with newsroom members. The clearest indications on the responsibility for the choice of the news come from TgLa7:
There are editorial meetings to set the schedule for the main editions, between the editor or a management delegate and the individual newsroom members. The editor in charge lists a number of priorities and opens a debate. There is an axiological evaluation and the schedule is built. We must always pay attention to the timing, according to the editions. The 20:00 edition is in the hands of the editor, he chooses the themes and times.
A more political reading comes from the Tg1 newsroom member:
If the institutions speak, nine times out of ten this becomes a piece. If the oppositions speak there will be the piece on the opposition. If there is a theme there will be a dedicated piece. Then institutional politics, the newscasts live on institutional politics.
Something that seems to be totally missing in the Italian landscape is a procedure concerning news originating in social media. The question is particularly important when statements are diffused by political leaders through social media. Tg1 newsroom members declare:
We always try to pay attention to the type of social profile, whether it is official or not. Most of the time it is the party who reports the post or tweet or video of a politician. Sometimes, for example, when a leader of a right-wing party, in order not to get infected with Covid-19, invites us to do the “Roman greeting” (form of salutation with the right arm up, dating back to fascist period), you wonder if it’s true. In that case, you check with the person concerned, with the press office or by calling [them] directly.
TgLa7 newsroom member raises the issue in broader terms, calling into question the issue of disintermediation:
Politicians, company owners, stakeholders, anyone who has an interest in giving their own version of the facts that should be mediated, but this does not happen. The question is: how is a statement about Salvini’s social media exposure, or Renzi or anyone else, going to be in the news? Without having a chance to ask a question… in my opinion, yes, but only if that statement is relevant, if it’s the news. If it’s a normal controversy, we can do without… But it’s a bad habit.
