begin with a simple question: how did the Italian TV? Italian television was born in '54, headed the Democracy Cristiana.Fino the late 70's was a highly educational television, but also capable of opening the best in the country, the great intellectuals like Eco, Vattimo, Guglielmi , Furio Colombo . He then realizes that the enlightened management of DC can not be the only guarantee of pluralism, then - and we are in the mid-'70s - was born the so-called Reformation, which coincides with the end of Bernabei direction. The RAI is tripartite: the DC is the first channel, the secular-socialist the second to the Communists and regional television.
Then, in the '80s, comes this strange man from the building called Silvio Berlusconi . And he is the only one who understands something fundamental: to make the fortune of the TV commercial you never have to decide what areas and how to use them, but given the opportunity to force small businesses to participate in the banquet television.
is commonly believed that the arrival of this new television, culturally worse than the previous year, also has a negative impact on people, rimbecillendole
... There is a very banal to address the problem, but if we face it in terms anthropology is very serious. In a society like ours, where so-called educational institutions - the church, school, family, parties, the working class - are losing their strength training, television has taken an apparent weight in terms of anthropological models. This is a real problem, because most of the Italian population receives its heavily on television, at the expense of other media.
The television commercial, by its nature, has never taken a pedagogical or educational problems, but only the task of maximizing profits . Mediaset This was one of the most blatant examples of Europe. However, where there is a fee paid by the citizens la RAI avrebbe dovuto mantenere il proprio lavoro di servizio pubblico, ma con la corsa alla massimizzazione degli ascolti si sta dimenticando cosa voglia dire fare servizio pubblico.
Quale può essere la soluzione?
Sto diventando sempre più scettico a riguardo. Se lei mi avesse fatto questa domanda cinque anni fa, le avrei risposto: sì, bisogna fare, costruire... Dentro la RAI c'è ancora una bella fetta di persone che è cresciuta dentro un grande progetto culturale, e ne ha memoria, ce l'ha nel suo dna, ma non è questa la RAI che ha figliato. E man mano chi ha costruito l’identità forte della prima RAI se ne andrà. Ormai c'è una classe dirigente which largely does not know how to make public service , this is the truth and this is doing to die.
About pluralism, even today the RAI channels, as well as institutional ones. Who is television at the moment, who is the real author, who are those that regulate television programming, writing programs, etc.?
now we are a strong personality that goes for television. An example: Maria De Filippi. E '50% of Channel 5, and then as De Filippi, thanks to its ability to make plays, make the body with the country, to play a certain type of young class. Parallel to De Filipp
i can match Carlo Conti. Paradoxically Conti, who is apparently "a thing devoid of personality," in fact gives a strong figure at this time to RAI, which is unfortunately a number of revivals, memory, memory. It's no programmatic idea.
No. Berlusconi began to experiment: network managers, so managers an editorial line, but marketing people, who could meet the target audience. This model has also moved into the RAI. Let me give you a very significant example. Inside the RAI is becoming more and more the idea of \u200b\u200bentrusting the networks of journalists, which is makes no sense: the journalist does not know the schedule, the journalist has a different type of training. Yet we think of Del Noce, Mazza, Ruffini, Di Bella. The two main networks RAI 1 and RAI-3 - are directed now at least fifteen years by journalists. Before the cursus to become director of network was different.
Switch to TV Talk. She has a young editorial staff are all university, right? What do you see these kids, born with a television, for example with respect to the teachers in this program? Note the difference in the interpretation of things?
Oh yes, because the whole story of which I spoke before, kids today do not know. I was born a couch potato as a child, RAI but couch potato, while the boys are grown in Mediaset. But there is another problem. Today we are worshiping, in terms of inflows, the Faculty of Communication Sciences, which are the real boom of the last fifteen years. We are turning out, and the same goes for those studying journalism, tons of graduates who do not know how to use.
you think television is still a revolutionary means, it still has the ability to change things when he was born? Or it is always less than the Internet, for example.
I have the impression that it is intended to tarnish a bit '. What strikes me is that you are claiming a modello di rito televisivo che non ha più al centro l'appuntamento televisivo. Tutto si può seguire in differita sul sito RAI, al di là del giorno di messa in onda. E questo rivoluzionerà i palinsesti. Secondo me l’impero della tv generalista finirà fra una decina d’anni, forse meno. La pubblicità andrà da altre parti, come già sta succedendo: sta scendendo vistosamente dai giornali, poi scenderà dalla televisione generalista, e quest’ultima si ridurrà di peso ed entrerà in un mezzo come internet, spezzettata e sparsa. Però c'è ancora una cosa da risolvere: il modello di business. Finora dentro la tv generalista era chiaro come si poteva sviluppare il rapporto fra advertising and fees, as you could fall in costs. With the Internet model is still immature. Everybody is running to the pay-TV, have realized that the real business to work on, now that the advertisement is in crisis is a product tailored to the viewer who is willing to pay. It will become increasingly so.
How will the television of the future?
How will frankly do not know. I see that the future is a mess, especially if you do not solve business models, that is the true profitability and work. For now all we see is produced by a previous business model-or advertising-fee. There is still based products generally, though perhaps they are watched on YouTube and not only through the canonical broadcast. We see a family doctor, Checco Zalone, Susan Boyle, those pieces of general television are still paid by an old business model. But if this fails? Someone has to pay the Zalone , someone has to pay the cameraman, the scene, the theater. Same thing is going to happen with the music: who pays them drive in the end? We download all for free - great - but in the end, when you have to pull out those thousands of euro to go to the recording studio, who hunt them this money?
The idea that we must pay for these things today is almost an insult, but it can not last forever, because otherwise the players will end. The musician has to eat. This is about understanding who invent new models. So it will be a new world, we see that the world will be.
Giuseppe Argentieri and Judith Grechi
Giuseppe Argentieri and Judith Grechi
0 comments:
Post a Comment