Repubblica tries but here’s the truth –

“Scurati case, the document that denies Rai: ‘Contract canceled for editorial reasons'”. This is how he titled the site Republic on the controversy of the day, the one linked to the writer’s monologue Antonio Scurati on April 25th announced and then canceled in the Rai broadcast Caesarconducted by Serena Bortone. The left, as a conditioned reflex, immediately shouted at the censorship of TeleMeloni and the regime, it’s a shame that the issues soon came to a head. As explained by the director of Rai Insights, Paolo Corsini, they were behind the cancellation of the intervention economic demands advanced by Scurati himself for a participation that was expected to be free of charge. He published the proof The weatherthis is the email with which Ilaria Mecarelli, executive producer of the Rai 3 Saturday evening programme, reports the guests of the episode marked with the wording TG, free titleand TO, onerous title. The name of the writer bears the first wording: no compensation foreseen, which would have been requested at a later time compared to the agreements made, thus causing the guest to fail.

But then how do you explain “the document that denies Rai” that he talks regarding Republic? It’s regarding a internal note of Rai which communicates the cancellation of Scurati’s participation as “author of creative texts”, the famous one monologueper “editorial reasons“. In short, behind the ban on the author of “M.” there are not mere economic reasons but one censorship beautiful and good editorial, one might think. Too bad things aren’t like that.

“Editorial reasons is the formula that is merely used to formally imply that of economic reasons”explains a qualified internal RAI source The weather. In fact, “the majority of requests for contracts with guests, which are not successful for purely economic reasons and in Rai this happens every day and in every programme, see the formula ‘editorial reasons’ in the cancellation request”, it is clarified. Why this is used formulation it is clear: the general reduction in spending has, in recent years, been a priority need for the public service.

But how does the TV participation circuit in Rai work? For the contractualization of a guest, there are two structures that walk on parallel tracks. The productive one that makes the guest’s formal request and that of the artistic resources office, which formally proposes the financial figure to the guest following the so-called “precedent” rule. When the latter, for various reasons, does not accept the financial offer made to him, the production part formally initiates the cancellation of the request and does so justifying it with the words “for editorial reasons”.

In short, everything is clear. But in Scurati’s case there is also another aspect that belies the theorem built by the left. “Also the approval chain of Official press release of the episode (present on the Rai websites), requires approval of the same by the top management – explains the Rai source once more – Whoever would have wanted to censor, according to the narrative, would certainly not have approved a press release, within which there was the name of the alleged censor, on Friday 19 April”. Rather, “it was evidently Scurati himself who change your mindadvancing one economic request which initially had not been there. It is no coincidence that the sending of the email by the producer initially reports the TG (as previously mentioned, “free of charge”, ed.) next to Scurati’s name. That’s the official email that reached the top management.” In short, no censorship. Is anything else needed to put an end to yet another exploitative controversy?