Preface
This Report is the outcome of a collaboration among Italian researchers from different universities who have come together after a panel hosted on the occasion of the Italian Political Science Congress (SISP) of September 2019, where Prof. Josef Trappel introduced the MDM 2020 edition and invited us to participate. A team of 14 researchers self-constituted between September and October 2019, gathering different competences, disciplinary approaches and ineterests.
We held one physical meeting to analyse the framework and divide labour (Milan, October 8) and conducted all subsequent activities via regular coordination and exchange via email. A second general meeting was planned in April to revise and discuss the drafted indicators, but due to covid distancing this activity was moved online (zoom meetings: May 25, June 1, June 8).
This project has also been an interesting experience of collaboration between senior and younger researchers. Furthermore, an MDM-related ‘special project’ was carried out in the course ‘International Communication’ offered at the Unversity of Padova between April and June 2020, when a group of 25 students mastered their understanding of media systems and their relation to democratic development on 7 different countries involved in the 2020 edition (Australia, Canada, Chile, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain), engaging with some of the indicators proposed in the MDM framework. the national coordinators for kindly providing answers to students’ questions.
We thank Josef Trappel for his kind and firm coordination;
A big thanks to all the Italian colleagues who have devoted time, shared their knowledge and contributed with enthusiasm, on a voluntary bases, to conduct research, carry out interviews and to elaborate the different indicators included in this Report. We trust this is a productive contribution to the MDM 2020 edition, as well as a ground for future collaborations towards further understanding the wagers of democracy in digitally mediated contexts.
Claudia Padovani
June, 18 2020
[supsystic-tables id=54]
Introduction
Italy is a Southern European country, a peninsula extending into the central Mediterranean Sea, northeast of Tunisia, with a population of 60,359.546 (30,974.780 female, 29,384.766 male). The most inhabited municipalities are Rome (2,856.133), Milan (1,378.689), Naples (959,188) and Turin (875,698)[1].
Italian population includes small clusters of German-, French-, and Slovene-Italians in the north and Albanian-Italians and Greek-Italians in the south; next to the official language, Italy recognises 12 linguistic communities, protected since the Constitutional Charter and fully recognised by the approval of the 1999 “Norms on the Protection of Historical Linguistic Minorities”.
Italy borders Austria, France, Holy See (Vatican City), San Marino, Slovenia, Switzerland. Its geographical position in the Mediterranean has been strategic for centuries in relation to trade, political developments and intercultural exchanges; and today places the country on two of the most important migratory routes: the Mediterranean and the Balkan.
Politically, Italy is a representative democracy in the form of a parliamentary republic. Italian State is organised in a centralised manner, with significant regional decentralisation resulting from the 2001 modification of the Title V of the 1948 Constitution according to which the existing 20 regions have gained more autonomy and specific powers of intervention.
The 18th Italian Legislation was inaugurated following the 2018 general elections, from which emerged a coalition government composed initially by the Five Star Movement and League, which has been enlarged to include the Democratic Party and other minor centre-left parties. The transition from a government in which the two major Italian “populist” forces were represented to a new coalition that excludes the right-wing party was far from painless, but Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, an independent figure close to the Five Stars Movement, guarantees a certain degree of continuity.
International democracy indexes and ranking
According to the V-Dem annual Democracy Report (2019), Italy ranks amongst the top (10%) and the bottom (20-30%) countries with regard, respectively, to the Liberal Democracy Index and the Political Corruption Index, notwithstanding corruption has decreased in the past 10 years.
The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Democracy Index (2019) – based on five categories (electoral process and pluralism; the functioning of government; political participation; political culture; and civil liberties) and four types of regime (full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime or authoritarian regime) – classifies Italy as a ‘flawed democracy’. Italy ranks in the 35th position, reaching the lowest score on record since 2006. This is explained by a high degree of popular discontent with the traditional mainstream parties, which has led to the fragmentation of the political scene, difficulties in government formation and governments’ struggles to remain stable and effective.
Notwithstanding, Italy is rated ‘free’ in Freedom in the World, Freedom House’s annual study of political rights and civil liberties worldwide (rate: 89/100). The most critical indicator is “F. Rule of Law”, because of concerns about judicial corruption, lengthy delays in judicial procedures, reports of excessive use of force by police, discrimination and violence on LGBT people and migrants (Freedom House, 2020).
Gender equality
Gender equality should be considered as a core element in a country’s democratic development. It relates to women’s enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms, including the freedom to express themselves and voice concerns, and to their possibility to participate in public life and access managerial and decision making positions, so as to contribute in the governance of a country: all aspects that require specific attention when investigating the media’s democratic performance.
According to the Gender Equality Index of the European Institute for Gender Equality[2], with 63.0 out of 100 points, Italy ranks 14th in the EU on the Gender Equality Index. Between 2005 and 2017, Italy’s score increased by 13.8 points, showing meaningful progress at a faster pace than other EU Member States. Its rank has in fact improved by 12 places since 2005, nevertheless its score remains 4.4 points lower than the EU’s score (67.4).
Italy’s scores are lower than the EU’s scores in all domains, except the domain of health. Gender inequalities are most pronounced in the domains of ‘power’ (47.6 points) and ‘time’ (59.3 points). Italy has also the lowest score of all EU Member States in the domain of ‘work’ (63.1 points). Its highest score is in the domain of ‘health’ (88.7 points). Since 2005, Italy’s scores have improved the most in the domains of ‘knowledge’ (+ 7.1 points) and ‘power’ (+ 31.5 points): since this is the domain where inequalities are higher this result signals the situation was extremely critical in 2005. Challenges remain, beside the ‘power’ domain, also in the domain of ‘time’, where Italy’s progress has stalled (- 0.8 points) since 2005.
Violence against women is both a consequence and cause of persisting gender inequalities in the areas of work, health, money, power, knowledge and time[3]. Italy recorded 76 women victims of intentional homicide by an intimate partner in 2016. The country does not provide data on women victims of intentional homicide by a family member. There were 747 registered women victims of trafficking in human beings in 2016. Italy signed and ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention) in September 2013.
The Italian media system
As reported by the Reuters Digital News Report (2019) after the 2018 general election, minor changes in the Italian media environment took place to reflect the new balance of power within Italian politics, while a continuing weakening of the printed newspaper sector can be observed.
As far as the press is concerned, it has always been linked to a political-cultural elite, and its mass diffusion has been somehow anticipated by that of television, which has been the basis of media consumption of Italians for many years, becoming, for the weaker social groups, a real mono-medial culture. The effects of the historical absence of “pure publishers”, and traits of more recent editorial concentration, can be seen in the current ownership structure of both the major print publications and the major radio and television companies.
The most widely read newspapers are Corriere della Sera (whose publisher, Rcs – MediaGroup S.p.a., is a 60% subsidiary of the entrepreneur Urbano Cairo), la Repubblica and La Stampa (by same publisher, GEDI, which also owns three of the major national radio stations – Radio Deejay, Radio Capital and Radio m2o – and whose majority shareholder, CIR, is a holding company active in the automotive and health sectors).
In the television sector, the historic “duopoly” between the Radio and Television Public Service (RAI, a concessionaire whose board of directors consists of seven members, four of whom are appointed by the Chamber and Senate, two by the government and one by the employees’ assembly) and the main private group (Fininvest, founded by the tycoon Silvio Berlusconi and still 44% controlled by the Fininvest holding company of the Berlusconi family), has been “threatened” over the past years by the appearance of new players. These include La7 (a television channel owned by the Cairo Communication group) and Sky Italia (a pay-TV platform published by the English company of the same name).
The ownership structure of the media system is at the basis of the question of conflict of interest which, with the political success of Silvio Berlusconi between 1994 and the first decade of the 2000s, constituted a world-known legal and political case. Since 1997, a Communications Guarantee Authority – AGCOM – has been established. Amongst its tasks are the monitoring of radio and television broadcasting, the protection of political and social pluralism and the verification of compliance with the “par condicio” to all parties and movements in accessing the media.
The Reuters 2019 Report provides a general overview of recent developments and the current situation: while broadcasters’ revenues have been relatively stable from 2013 to 2017, newspapers’ and magazines’ revenues experienced a 21% reduction during the same period. In terms of overall revenue share within the Italian communication system, the main players are the international broadcaster Comcast Corporation/Sky (15%), Berlusconi’s broadcasting group Fininvest/Mediaset (15%), and the public service broadcaster RAI (14%). Other relevant players are the international platforms Google (4%) and Facebook (3%), Cairo Communication (the publisher of the TV channel La7, which also controls Il Corriere della Sera, 4%), and GEDI (the publisher of La Repubblica, La Stampa, and several other local newspapers and radio stations, 3%).4
The online news market is still dominated by legacy players. The websites with the widest online reach are those of established commercial TV broadcasters (the Mediaset’s TgCom24 and SkyTg24), the main newspapers (La Repubblica, Il Corriere della Sera, and Il Fatto Quotidiano), and the main Italian news agency (ANSA). However, 2018 has also been marked by the impressive results of the digital-born outlet Fanpage (an online newspaper based in Naples belonging to the Ciaopeople publishing group and known for its vocation to investigative journalism). Thanks to its effective use of social media, its focus on online videos, and the establishment of large teams of multimedia experts and social media managers, Fanpage is now among the top five online news players in our survey list. Worth mentioning is also CityNews (a local information publishing group based on the logic of participatory journalism and present in regional areas with 50 local editions). Finally, at the end of December 2018, Enrico Mentana, the editor of La7 television newscast, launched Open, a digital-born news outlet that has been widely publicised from the Facebook page of its founder.
International indexes on media freedom and consumption
The World Press Freedom Index (2020) published by Reporters Without Borders (RWB) ranks Italy 41 out of 180 countries (+2 since 2019). The Report underlines some obstacles to full freedom of the press in Italy. Amongst these: the mafia and its acts of intimidations against journalists (20 professionals under full protection by the police because of threats), and verbal and physical attacks journalists undergo from fascists and members of the extremist groups. RWB also warns about some political decisions that could harm the profession, such as the diminution of state subsidies for the media decided during the current legislature.
The Article 19’s Expression Agenda has evaluated Italy on five criteria: civic space (place, physical and legal, where individuals realise their rights), transparency (right of individuals to obtain information from both public and private bodies), digital (freedom of expression and information must be respected and put into legal documents), media (media pluralism and media freedom) and protection (of those defending freedom of information and expression, such as journalists). The overall picture is positive especially in civic space and transparency; the more critical situation being the digital dimension. (Freedom of Expression 2019)
In fact, as highlighted by the Freedom House’s comprehensive study of internet freedom around the globe –Freedom on the Net– Italy, with a score of 75 out of 100, lags behind other European countries in terms of overall connectivity, despite several attempts have been made to close the digital divide.
Finally, according to the Digital News Report 2019 commissioned by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism to understand how news is consumed, Italian citizens appear to informed themselves mainly through traditional media. Newspaper readership continues to fall steadily while television news viewership has been more stable than in many other countries. Furthermore, trust in news is particularly low amongst the Italian public (news overall 40%). This longstanding trend is explained as mainly due to the partisan nature of Italian journalism and to the strong influence of political and business interest on news organisation. The only trend that is growing strongly is the use of social media to get information.
Similarly, the most recent CENSIS data[4]confirm the crisis of the print media (50.4% of the total population, mainly in the age group 65 years and over), a substantial stability of television use (94.2% of the total population, with a rather homogeneous distribution by age), and a significant increase in internet use (79.3% of the population, mainly in the age groups between 14-29 and 30-44 years). A data of great interest, reported by the Economic-Statistical Service of AGCOM, concerns the access to information through algorithmic sources (social network sites, search engines, news aggregators and information portals: 54.5% of the population) and editorial sources (websites/apps of newspapers, periodicals, national and local radio and TV, digital native newspapers: 39.4% of the national population)[5].
[1] ISTAT, Resident population January 1st, 2020, http://dati.istat.it/Index.aspx?QueryId=18462, data retrieved June 15, 2020.
[2] The Gender Equality Index is a tool to measure the progress of gender equality in the EU, developed by EIGE. It gives more visibility to areas that need improvement and ultimately supports policy makers to design more effective gender equality measures. It reveals both progress and setbacks by focusing on 6 core areas or ‘domains’ (work, money, knowledge, time, power and health) and 2 additional domains (violence against women, intersecting inequalities); and includes 31 indicators from 28 European countries). See: https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/2019/IT.
[3] The domain of violence is not captured in the calculations of the Gender Equality Index. Instead, it is calculated as a separate composite measure of three aspects: prevalence, severity and disclosure of violence against women.
[4] XVI Report on Communication, 2019: https://www.censis.it/comunicazione/16%C2%B0-rapporto-censis-sulla-comunicazione-0.
[5] Report on news consumption, 2018: https://www.agcom.it/documents/10179/9629936/Studio-Ricerca+19-02-2018/72cf58fc-77fc-44ae-b0a6-1d174ac2054f?version=1.0
[supsystic-tables id=55]
COVID-19 Pandemic
Italy has been the first European country in Europe to impose several restrictions on the free circulation of people, schools and universities opening and on economic and commercial activities.
During the so-called “lockdown” (which in some areas of the country started at the end of February and was partially lifted only at the beginning of June), the TV total audience has considerably increased, both during the day (about +2 million users) and in prime time (about +4 million users). According to the Italian Institute of Statistics (ISTAT), in March and April 2020, 53% of people aged 18-34 years and 50% of people aged 35-54 years have watched TV to a greater extent than in the previous period.
For what concerns newspapers, even if the newsstand sales have decreased (the Italian Government let newsstands open even during the worst phase of the pandemic), according to Comscore, Italian Internet users have considerably increased their visits to newspapers apps and websites; possibly more than other European users (during the first lockdown week +140% compared to a normal week before COVID-19; during the Easter week in April +90% compared to a normal week before COVID-19).
Only radio listeners have decreased, because of the considerable amount of Italians who have a habit of listening to the radio while driving their cars, during the daily commuting to work, completely cleared during the “lockdown” period.
The average daily time spent online by every Internet user has remarkably increased (+3% from February to March 2020, by computer, tablet and smartphone, +16% by computer), even because of the online shift of any classroom (schools and universities) or working activity (smart work and ‘lavoro agile’). In any case, according to the March 2020 Audiweb report, about 25% of the Italian population (two years or older) has still been offline in the average month.
Following the Law Decree n. 18/2020 provisions, the Italian Regulatory Communications Authority (AGCOM) has established four permanent Working Groups (WP) involving the main stakeholders, aimed at sharing proposals and initiatives for managing priorities arising from the current emergency. These WPs are specifically dedicated to: a) Electronic Communication Services and Consumers; b) Postal Services; c) Media Services; d) Online Platforms and Big Data.
At the same time, AGCOM has approved:
(i) a first package of measures addressed to electronic communications networks and services providers aimed at coping with the increase in the consumption of electronic communications services/ traffic on the network, as well as at meeting the needs of the different sectors, in particular the health sector.
(ii) a resolution containing provisions regarding the correctness of information about the coronavirus/COVID-19 topic – with this provision, AGCOM has invited all audiovisual and radio media services to ensure correct and adequate information on the medical emergency, and to provide verified information coming from authoritative sources. At the same time, video sharing platforms were asked to provide measures to counter the spreading of incorrect or not fact-checked news about the COVID-19 issues.
Following this resolution, within the Media Services WP, AGCOM is periodically sharing on its website data about the time dedicated by radio and tv to the topic of COVID-19 in the news and in the current affairs programs and specific tv audience data.
At the same time, within the Online Platforms and Big Data WP, AGCOM is focusing on the implementation of initiatives aimed at contrasting online disinformation on medical and health issues related to COVID-19, even through the collaboration with online platforms themselves. In this context, Facebook has launched a project aimed at tackling disinformation on Whatsapp, in partnership with Facta, the new branch of the Italian fact-checker Pagella Politica.
Furthermore, AGCOM is publishing monthly special issues of its Online Disinformation Observatory specifically dedicated to COVID-19, and has set up a Data Science Task Force on online disinformation, in partnership with research as well as academic institutions.
With regard to Government initiatives, the Under-Secretary of State for Press and Publishing has launched a special COVID-19 Fake News Task Force, involving journalists, fact-checkers, scholars and scientists. Furthermore, following the journalists and (online) publishers’ requests, the most recent Law Decree n. 34/2020 has extended the chance to get a tax credit for advertisers spending in press, radio and tv advertising spaces; it also introduced a specific tax credit for online publishers IT (information technology) expenses, and other measures affecting press distribution and newsstands.
In order to verify the impact of the emergency situation on the role of journalism and editorial routines, we conducted some follow-up interviews with selected leading media representatives. Particularly significant was the testimony of the editor-in-chief of TG1, which highlights four dimensions of impact.
The first, related to the “agenda capacity” of institutional communication and the response in terms of adaptation to media logic: “In terms of awareness, the media moved in sync with the overall perception of the phenomenon, which in turn was determined by the way institutional communication was handled by the government. It was they who dictated the timing to generate the perception of greater or lesser awareness of the risks associated with the pandemic. Two antithetical tendencies emerged: on the one hand, there was a very evident, very strong demand for the restoration of journalistic mediation, all the more so in the face of what has been defined as ‘infodemic’ … on the other hand, however, especially with regard to the specific nature of the television medium, distortions emerged as they were before the arrival of the virus: the logic of infotainment, cannibalization of programming … In ‘Phase 1’ it was rather difficult to distinguish journalistic containers from infotainment ones. Even the pandemic broke into the ‘light entertainment’ programs – we will remember the Sunday (February 23rd, ed.) when the Prime Minister from the Civil Protection Press Office connected with all the television broadcasts on air … all of them, even those that were not necessarily information or infotainment”.
At the crossroads between the need to refer to expert knowledge in times of emergency and the pervasiveness of media logic there is also the second dimension of interest, relating to the role of experts: “Journalism, at least in the first phase, had to rely heavily on what was the mediation by experts – epidemiologists, virologists, infectivologists … The dynamic that accompanied the narration of the pandemic in ‘Phase 1’ was to identify a sort of consultant: each media outlet, each transmission chose one or two experts, trusted their approach … This situation produced loyalty to specific experts, to specific ways of creating attention to the solution of the problem, but it has also brought a very strong distortion … The scientists who have been found to be the most credible are also those who have gone on television … but we know that there are other types of parameters through which to assess the credibility of scientific approaches [other than those] of the logic of dichotomous opposition, of opposition of a hypothesis “b” to a hypothesis “a”, which meets the requirement of controversial journalistic narrative”.
The third dimension highlighted by the editor-in-chief of the TG1 concerns the strengthening of formal measures to combat disinformation, which unfortunately seem to confirm a dimension of “formality” rather than of actual impact on journalistic narrative: “RAI has set up an Observatory on fake news in conjunction with the management of the emergency phase, equipped with a task force that, for the journalistic part, has been and is coordinated by Antonio Di Bella, and that has been a useful opportunity to accelerate on what is an obligation of the service contract, which provides not only for the monitoring of fake news but also campaigns to raise awareness of the television and radio audience on the risk of fake news. Honestly, I do not know what the Observatory has produced so far because nothing has been communicated to us … on the other hand, coordination between networks and newspapers is difficult even under normal conditions”.
The short experiment of integration of citizens’ participation is also on the side of the exceptional enlargement of innovation spaces: “As TG1 we have strengthened the social media management area … this has allowed us to receive more feedback than normal. Then we also used a quite interesting solution, always in Phase 1: we invited viewers to send videos that portrayed them in the dimension of domestic life … in this way contributing to make that little piece of ‘mediated’ public sphere domestically an element of the overall narration of the pandemic”.
The overall picture certainly represents a challenge of great interest: Italian journalism has had to come to terms with a main issue that, by theme and by protagonists, has openly challenged the logic of infotainment and, at the same time, with a renewed centrality of institutional communication with respect to political communication. It has had to accelerate inevitable processes in the “platform society” such as those of contrasting fake news and involving citizens, for the moment without organic consequences. But strategies and tactics adopted in an emergency remain an important innovation for an “innovation of normality”.
_______________________
Conclusions
To be completed
References
AGCOM (2017). II Rapporto Italiano sul giornalismo. Accessible at: https://www.agcom.it/documents/10179/7278186/Documento+generico+29-03-2017/3c3b73a7-64ce-47e9-acf1-e0ae62fad01f?version=1.0
AGCOM (2018). Indagine conoscitiva sull’informazione locale. https://tinyurl.com/qw6frlf
AGCOM (2018). Local News Sector Inquiry. Accessible at: https://www.agcom.it/documents/10179/12791486/Allegato+8-2-2019/4c8a64e8-9102-4d88-89ef-a64effbad6cb?version=1.0)
AGCOM (2018). Osservatorio sulle testate online. Accessible at: https://tinyurl.com/yxxhsj94
AGCOM (2018). Rapporto sul consumo di informazione. Available on the Agency’s website.
AGCOM (2018). Regional News System. Accessible at: https://www.agcom.it/documents/10179/12791486/Documento+generico+29-11-2018/ba86861a-1025-46fd-9d73-02b06872b684?version=1.0
AGCOM (2018). Relazione annuale. https://tinyurl.com/ttkfujw
AGCOM (2018). Report on News Consumption. Accessible at: https://www.agcom.it/documents/10179/10214149/Studio-Ricerca+10-04-2018/4619854b-6d9b-491b-a3c8-f7444487006d?version=1.0
AGCOM (2019). Analisi delle posizioni dominanti nel settore dei servizi radiofonici. Accessible at: https://tinyurl.com/tqmlu95
AGCOM (2019). Communication Markets Monitoring System. Accessible at: https://tinyurl.com/sw6g3n2
AGCOM (2019). Osservatorio sulle Comunicazioni, n. 4. Accessible at https://www.agcom.it/documents/10179/17470491/Allegato+23-1-2020/7b245499-7f9f-45af-80c0-76b41a197b7c?version=1.0)
Antenore M., Splendore S. (eds., 2017), Data journalism. Guida essenziale alle notizie fatte con i numeri, Mondadori Università: Milan.
Article 19, Expression Agenda(2019).
Associazione Stampa Romana (2019). Carta dei valori” discussa in occasione degli Stati Generali dell’Informazione e dell’Editoria (Charter of Values” discussed at the States General for Information and Publishing).
AUDIPRESS (2020). Dati di sintesi 2019/III. Accessible at: http://audipress.it/pubblicati-dati-audipress-2019-iii-mauri-sostanziale-stabilita-nella-lettura/
Azzalini M. & Padovani C. (2015). Who makes the news? Global Media Monitoring Project 2015. National Report, Italy. Accessible at: http://whomakesthenews.org/gmmp/gmmp-reports/gmmp-2015-reports
Barton, A., & Storm, H. (2014). Violence and harassment against women in the news media: A global picture. New York: Women’s Media Foundation and the International News Safety Institute. Accessible at: https://www.iwmf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Violence-and-Harassment-against-Women-in-theNews-Media.pdf.
Bentivegna, S., & Marchetti, R. (2018). Journalists at a crossroads: Are traditional norms and practices challenged by Twitter? Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 19(2), 270–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917716594
Bracciale R., & Martella A. (2016). Le «tweeting habit» dei media outlet italiani. Problemi Dell’informazione, (3): 505–539.
Carrer L. (2020). Perché è stato sospeso temporaneamente il Foia?, IlSole24Ore, https://www.infodata.ilsole24ore.com/2020/04/01/43750/
Carta di Roma (2012). Le Linee Guida per l’applicazione della Carta di Roma – Versione 2012(Guidelines for the Application of the Charter of Rome – Version 2012)
Carta di Roma (2015). Le Linee Guida per l’applicazione della Carta di Roma – Versione 2015 (Guidelines for the Application of the Charter of Rome – Version 2015)
Carta di Roma (2018). Le Linee Guida per l’applicazione della Carta di Roma – Versione 2018(Guidelines for the Application of the Charter of Rome – Version 2018)
CENSIS (2020). 16° Rapporto sulla comunicazione. I media e la costruzione dell’identità. See the materials published on Research Centre’s website: www.censis.it .
CENSIS-UCSI (2018). 15o Rapporto sulla comunicazione. I media digitali e la fine dello star system(Fifteenth report on communication. Digital media and the end of the star system). See the materials published on Research Centre’s website: : www.censis.it .
Comcast (2020). Codice di condotta.
Consiglio nazionale dell’Ordine dei giornalisti (2018). “Quadro di indirizzi per l’autorizzazione, la regolamentazione e il controllo delle scuole di formazione al giornalismo” (Framework of guidelines for the authorisation, regulation and supervision of journalism training schools).
Consiglio Nazionale dell’Ordine dei Giornalisti, Federazione Nazionale della Stampa Italiana (2008). Carta di Roma – Diritti dei migranti (Charter of Rome – Rights of migrants).
Consiglio Nazionale Ordine dei Giornalisti (1998). “Codice deontologico relativo al trattamento dei dati personali nell’esercizio dell’attività giornalistica ai sensi dell’art. 25 della legge 31 dicembre 1996, n. 675” (Code of ethics relating to the processing of personal data in the exercise of journalistic activities pursuant to art. 25 of Law no. 675 of 31 December 1996).
Consiglio Nazionale Ordine dei Giornalisti (2016). Testo unico dei doveri del giornalista(Consolidated text of the journalist’s duties).
Consiglio Nazionale Ordine dei Giornalisti (2016). “Regolamento per la Formazione Professionale Continua degli iscritti all’Ordine dei giornalisti” (Regulations for Continuous Professional Training for members of the Order of Journalists).
Consiglio Nazionale Ordine dei Giornalisti, 2016, “Testo unico dei doveri del giornalista” (Consolidated text of the journalists duties). – https://www.odg.it/testo-unico-dei-doveri-del-giornalista/24288
Consiglio Nazionale Ordine dei Giornalisti, Federazione Nazionale della Stampa Italiana, 1993, “Carta dei doveri del giornalista” (Journalist’s charter of duties).
Cornia A (2014) Will Italian political journalism ever change? In: Kuhn R and Nielsen RK (eds) Political Journalism in Transition: Western Europe in a Comparative Perspective. London: Tauris, pp. 47–73.
Cornia A (2016) TV-centrism and politicisation in Italy: Obstacles to new media development and pluralism. Media, Culture & Society 38(2): 141–158.
COSPE ( a cura di) (2009). A Diversity Toolkit. Guida sulla diversità culturale nei programmi d’informazione del servizio televisivo pubblico. http://www.cestim.it/argomenti/08media/07_Diversity_toolkit_italiano.pdf
Darr, J. P., Hitt, M. P., & Dunaway, J. L. (2018). Newspaper Closures Polarize Voting Behavior. Journal of Communication, 68(6), 1007-1028
Decreto legislativo 15 maggio 2017, n. 70, “Ridefinizione della disciplina dei contributi diretti alle imprese editrici di quotidiani e periodici, in attuazione dell’articolo 2, commi 1 e 2, della legge 26 ottobre 2016, n. 198” (“Redefinition of the discipline of direct contributions to companies publishing newspapers and periodicals, in implementation of Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Law 26 October 2016, n. 198”).
Decreto legislativo 25 gennaio 1992, n. 74, “Attuazione della direttiva 84/450/CEE in materia di pubblicità ingannevole” (“Implementation of Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising”).
Decreto legislativo 8 giugno 2001 n. 231 , recante “Disciplina della responsabilità amministrativa delle persone giuridiche, delle società e delle associazioni anche prive di personalità giuridica” (Legislative Decree no. 231 of 8 June 2001 on “Regulations governing the administrative liability of legal persons, companies and associations, including those without legal personality”).
Della Morte R., 2019, Giornaliste minacciate: su 1706 attacchi il 21% è donna. Accessible at: https://www.ossigeno.info/giornaliste-minacciate-su-1706-attacchi-il-21-e-donna/
Drago, F., Nannicini, T., Sobbrio, F. (2014). Meet the press: How voters and politicians respond to newspaper entry and exit. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(3), 159-88.
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), Democracy Index (2019).
EJO European Journalism Observatory, 2008, Dove sono le donne nelle testate europee. Accessible at: https://it.ejo.ch/in-evidenza/donne-genere-giornalismo.
European Institute for Gender Equality, EIGE (2013). Review of the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action in the EU member states: Women and the media: advancing gender equality in decision-making in media organisations. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Accessible at: https://eige.europa.eu/publications/advancing-gender-equality-decision-making-media-organisations-report
European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA, 2020). Study on Industry-led Good Practices related to Gender Diversity in the European Audiovisual Sector. Report with Recommendations. Accessible at: https://erga-online.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/ERGA_2019_SG4_Report.pdf
Federazione Italiana Editori Giornali, Federazione Nazionale Stampa Italiana (2009-2013-2016), “Contratto Nazionale di Lavoro Giornalistico” (National Journalistic Employment Contract).
Federazione Italiana Editori Giornali, Federazione Nazionale Stampa Italiana (2009-2013-2016), “Contratto Nazionale di Lavoro Giornalistico” (“National Journalistic Employment Contract”).
Federazione Nazionale Stampa Italiana, Telefono azzurro, Consiglio Nazionale Ordine dei Giornalisti (1990). Carta di Treviso – Diritti dei minori (Charter of Treviso – Rights of the child).
Federazione Nazionale Stampa Italiana, Unione Stampa Periodica Italiana (2018-2020), “Contratto collettivo per la regolamentazione dei rapporti di lavoro di natura giornalistica nelle testate periodiche di informazione a diffusione locale, delle testate a diffusione nazionale no profit, nelle testate on line prevalentemente locali” (“Collective agreement for the regulation of employment relationships of journalistic nature in the periodicals of information distributed locally, in the national non-profit newspapers, and in the mainly local online newspapers”).
Felle T. (2015), Digital Watchdogs? Data Reporting and the News Media’s Traditional ‘Fourth Estate’ Function. Journalism: 85-96.
Fengler, S., Bastian, M., Brinkmann, J., Zappe, AC (2017). The Politicization of the Migrant Crisis: A Comparative Analysis in six European and five African Countries of how the Press covered Migration from Africa to Europe. November 22 – 23 2017 ECREA PolComm Conference in Zurich, Switzerland.
FNSI (2019). Indagine Cpo Fnsi: l’85% delle giornaliste ha subito molestie sessuali, 5/4/2019. https://www.fnsi.it/indagine-cpo-fnsi-l85-delle-giornaliste-ha-subito-molestie-sessuali.
Freedom House, Freedom in the World (2020)
Freedom House, Freedom on the Net (2020)
GEDI group (2020). Codice etico del gruppo editoriale Gedi. Accesible at: https://www.gedispa.it/fileadmin/user_upload/CodiceEtico2020.pdf
Gerli, M, Mazzoni, M., and Mincigrucci, R. (2018), Constraints and limitations of investigative journalism in Hungary, Italy, Latvia and Romania, European Journal of Communication, 33(1): 22-36.
Giorgino F. (2017), Giornalismi e società: informazione, politica, economia e cultura. Mondadori Università: Milan.
Gruppo Editoriale GEDI – “Mission e Valori del Gruppo GEDI” – https://www.gedispa.it/it/il-gruppo/mission-e-valori.html
Gruppo Mediaset (last update 2019), “Codice Etico Gruppo Mediaset” (“Code of Ethics Mediaset Group”). Accesible at: https://www.mediaset.it/gruppomediaset/bin/60.$plit/Codice%20Etico%20-%205.02.2019.pdf.
Gurevitch M., Coleman S., Blumer J. G., 2009, Political communication, Old and New media Relationship, in “The Annals of the American academy of Political and Social Science”.
Hallin, D.C., Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayes, D., & Lawless, J. L. (2018). The decline of local news and its effects: New evidence from longitudinal data. The Journal of Politics, 80(1), 332-336.
Hermida, A. (2013). #JOURNALISM,Digital Journalism, 1 (3): 295-313, DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2013.808456.
Holton A.E., Coddington M., Lewis S.C., et al. (2015). Reciprocity and the News: The Role of Personal and Social Media Reciprocity in News Creation and Consumption. International Journal of Communication(9): 2526–2547.
Holton A.E., Lewis S.C., Coddington M. (2016). Interacting with Audiences. Journalism Studies17(7): 849–859. DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2016.1165139.
IFJ. (2018). Survey. https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/human-rights/article/ifj-survey-two-thirds-of-women-journalists-suffered-gender-based-online-attacks.html.
Index on censorship & European Center for Press and Media Freedom (2018). Demonising the media. Accessible at: https://mappingmediafreedom.org/index.php/demonising-media-threats-journalists-europe/ .
IWMF & Troll-Busters.com. (2018). Attacks and Harassment: the impact on female journalists and their reporting. Accessible at: https://www.iwmf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Attacks-and-Harassment.pdf.
Kaufhold K., Valenzuela S., de Zúñiga H. G. (2010). Citizen Journalism and Democracy: How User-Generated News Use Relates to Political Knowledge and Participation. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(3–4): 515–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769901008700305
Kleemans, M., Schaap, G., Hermans, L., 2017. ‘Citizen sources in the news: Above and beyond the vox pop?’ Journalism 18 (4): 464–481.
Komorek, E. (2013). Media Pluralism and European Law. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
La Repubblica – “Codice Etico La Repubblica” (“La Repubblica, Code of Ethics”) – https://www.repubblica.it/static/trust/ethics/.
LA7 S.p.A. (last update unavailable), “Codice Etico” (“Code of Ethics”). – https://www.la7.it/sites/default/files/contenuti_tecnici/la7_modello231_.pdf
Legge 14 settembre 2011, n. 148, “Conversione in legge, con modificazioni, del decreto-legge 13 agosto 2011, n. 138, recante ulteriori misure urgenti per la stabilizzazione finanziaria e per lo sviluppo. Delega al Governo per la riorganizzazione della distribuzione sul territorio degli uffici giudiziari” (“Conversion into law, with amendments, of Decree-Law no. 138 of 13 August 2011, containing additional urgent measures for financial stabilisation and development. Delegation of powers to the Government for the reorganisation of the distribution of judicial offices throughout the territory”).
Legge 3 febbraio 1963, n. 69, “Ordinamento della professione di giornalista” (Regulation of the profession of journalist).
Legge 6 agosto 1990, n. 223, “Disciplina del sistema radiotelevisivo pubblico e privato” (Regulation of the public and private broadcasting system).
Legnante G., 2009,I telegiornali italiani di fronte alla politica, in “Il Mulino”, 2009, n. 1.
Lewis S. (2012). The tension between professional control and open participation, Information, Communication & Society, 15:6, 836-866, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.674150.
Lewis S. C., Usher N. (2013). Open source and journalism: toward new frameworks for imagining news innovation. Media, Culture & Society, 35(5): 602–619. DOI:10.1177/0163443713485494.
LSDI (2016). Rapporto sul giornalismo in Italia. Aggiornamento 2015. Accessible at: http://www.lsdi.it/assets/Rapporto-lsdi-2016-LSDI-Pino-Rea.pdf
Maneri M., Meli A. (a cura di) (2007). Un diverso parlare Il fenomeno dei media multiculturali in Italia. Roma: Carocci.
Manning, P.A., 2001. News and news sources: a critical introduction. Sage, London.
Mauri L., Laffi S., Cologna D, (1999). Così vicini, così lontani. Per una comunicazione multiculturale. Roma: Rai-Eri VQPT.
Mazzoleni, G. and Splendore, S. 2011 ‘Italy: Discovering Media Accountability Culture’. In: T. Erbwein, S. Fengler, E. Lauk and T. Leppik-Bork (eds.), Mapping Media Accountability – In Europe and beyond, Herbert von Halem Verlag, Berlin, pp. 58-65.
Mazzoleni, G., Papathanassopoulos, S., Rojas, H., Soroka, S., 2014. ‘Sources in the News: A comparative study. Journalism Studies 15 (4): 374–391.
Mazzoleni, G., Vigevani, G., and Splendore, S. (2011). Mapping Digital Media: Journalism, Standards and Civil Society. Italy. Open Society Foundation.
MBRES (2019). Ufficio Stdi Mediobanca, Indagine sui principali operatori televisivi italiani e confronto con i maggiori peers pubblici europei. March 2019. Accessible at: https://www.mbres.it/sites/default/files/resources/rs_Focus-TV-2018.pdf
MEDIAACT – Media Accountability and Transparency in Europe (2010-2013), FP7-SSH – Specific Programme “Cooperation”: Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities.
Meijer A.J., Curtin D., Hillebrandt M. (2012), Open Government: Connecting Vision and Voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences78(1): 10-29.
Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Rai Radio Televisione italiana, 2018, “Contratto nazionale di servizio tra il ministero dello sviluppo Economico e la rai-radiotelevisione italiana s.p.a., 2018 – 2022” – http://www.rai.it/dl/doc/1521036887269_Contratto%202018%20testo%20finale.pdf
Moore J.E., Hatcher J.A. (2018). Disrupting Traditional News Routines Through Community Engagement. Journalism Studies, DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2017.1423238.
Opgenhaffen M., d’Haenens L. (2015). Managing Social Media Use: Whither Social Media Guidelines in News Organizations?, International Journal on Media Management, 17(4): 201-216, DOI: 10.1080/14241277.2015.1107570.
Osservatorio di Pavia (2018). Monitoraggio sulla rappresentazione femminile nella programmazione della RAI. Anno 2018. Accessible at: http://www.rai.it/dl/docs/1560427798872Monitoraggio_della_rappresentazione_della_figura_femminile__2018.pdf
Padovani, C. (2005). A Fatal Attraction: Public Television and Politics in Italy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Porlezza C. (2016), Dall’open journalism all’open government? Il ruolo del data journalism nella trasparenza e nella partecipazione. Problemi dell’informazione(1): 167-193.
Porlezza C., Splendore S. (2019). From Open Journalism to Closed Data: Data Journalism in Italy. Digital Journalism, 6(7), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1657778
Porlezza, C., & Splendore, S. (2016). Accountability and Transparency of Entrepreneurial Journalism: Unresolved ethical issues in crowdfunded journalism projects. Journalism Practice, 10(2), 196–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2015.1124731
PrimaOnline (2020a). Classifiche e trend dei quotidiani (Ads). A novembre bene Corsera, Sole, Avvenire, Carlino, Nazione, Gazzettino. Ma rispetto al 2018 calano tutti(Daily newspaper rankings and trends (Ads). In November Corsera, Sole, Avvenire, Carlino, Nazione, Gazzettino are in good shape. But compared to 2018 they all decline). Available at https://www.primaonline.it/2020/01/14/299857/classifiche-e-trend-dei-quotidiani-ads-a-novembre-bene-corsera-sole-avvenire-carlino-nazione-gazzettino-ma-rispetto-al-2018-calano-tutti/.
PrimaOnline (2020b). Top 100 informazione online Audiweb. A novembre bene quasi tutti i quotidiani, faticano di più i nativi digitali. (Top 100 on Audiweb online information report. In November all newspapers are almost well, the digital natives are struggling more). Available at https://www.primaonline.it/2020/01/17/300130/top100-informazione-online-di-novembre-secondo-audiweb/.
PRIN project (2017-2019) “Social representation of violence against women: the case of femicide in Italy”.
RAI – Radiotelevisione italiana Spa (last update 2013), “Codice Etico del Gruppo RAI” (“RAI Group Code of Ethics”). http://www.rai.it/dl/docs/1394535139980nuovo_codice_etico_gruppo_rai_.pdf
Rai – Radiotelevisione italiana (2017). Norme di comportamento relative alle molestie nei luoghi di lavoro. Available at: https://www.fnsi.it/upload/70/70efdf2ec9b086079795c442636b55fb/3b51f9872705e419dc909df5df764227.pdf
Rai, Usigrai-Fnsi, 2018, Convenzione Rai-Unione Industriale Roma Usigrai-Fnsi per l’estensione del Contratto nazionale di lavoro giornalistico http://www.usigrai.it/wpcontent/uploads/2018/11/Usigrai_CONVENZIONE_RAI.pdf
Rega R. (2017). Le testate su Twitter e la scommessa sulle soft news. Comunicazione Politica(3): 459–480.
Reporter Sans Frontières, Contribution to the EU public consultation on media pluralism and democracy, 2016. Accessible at: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/image/document/2016-44/reporterssansfrontiers_18792.pdf.
Reporters Without Borders (RWB), World Press Freedom Index (2020).
Reporters Without Borders (2020). 2020 World Press Freedom Index: Italy. https://rsf.org/en/italy.
Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (2019). Digital News Report. Accessible at: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/inline-files/DNR_2019_FINAL.pdf
Revers M. (2014). The Twitterization of News Making: Transparency and Journalistic Professionalism. Journal of Communication64(5): 806–826. DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12111.
Singer J. B., Domingo D., Heinonen A., Hermida A., Paulussen S., Quandt T., Reich Z., Vujnovic M. (2011).Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers. Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN: 978-1-444-33226-1.
Sorrentino C. (edited by) (2016). L’integrazione delle notizie, Focus in Media della Fondazione per la sussidiarietà.
Splendore S. 2017, Giornalismo ibridio,. Carocci, Roma.
Splendore S., Caliandro A. Airoldi M. (2016). Twittare le news: giornalisti hard e testate soft. Uno studio di caso di tre redazioni, Comunicazione Politica, XVI (1): 87-106.
Splendore, 2016, “Journalist in Italy”, country report for the “Worlds of Journalism Study”.
Splendore, S. (2017) ‘The dominance of institutional sources and the establishment of non-elite ones: The case of Italian online local journalism’, Journalism, online first, DOI: 10.1177/1464884917722896.
Splendore, S. 2017 ‘Italy: Transparency as an Inspiration’. In: S. Fengler, T. Eberwein and M. Karmasin (eds.), European Handbook of Media Accountability, London, Routledge, pp. 137-143.
Splendore, S. and Rega, R. 2018 ‘The mediatization of politics in the hybrid media system: The case of Italian political journalism’, Northern Lights, 15(1): 111-129.
Splendore, S., Curini, L., (2020). Proximity between citizens and journalists as a determinant of trust in the media. An application to Italy. Journalism Studies.
Statuto RAI – Radiotelevisione italiana S.p.A., 2010 (updated edition).
Stetka V (2012) From multinational to business tycoons: Media ownership and journalistic autonomy in Central and Eastern Europe. The International Journal of Press/Politics 17(4): 433–456.
Stetka V and Ornebring H (2013) Investigative journalism in Central and Eastern Europe: Autonomy, business models, and democratic roles. The International Journal of Press/Politics 18(4): 413–435
UNESCO (2019). Gender, Media and ICT. New approaches for research, education and training. UNESCO Series on Journalism Education. Accessible at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000368963.locale=en
V-Dem, Democracy Report (2019).
Wan-Ifra (2016) World Press Trend. Darmstadt: Wan-Ifra.
