ABSTRACT: Only candidate of the parties of the Left to challenge De Gaulle at the presidential elections of 1965, mastermind of the socialist refoundation and for many years secretary of the new French Socialist Party (PSF), promoter of the unity of the parties of the Left and of the common program in the early seventies, defeated by a hair's breadth by Giscard d'Estaing at the presidential elections of 1974 and then twice victorious in 1981 and 1988, François Mitterrand is an outstanding protagonist of recent French politics. For many years, the Radicals looked at his action as a possible model, especially for his contribution in the process of the socialist refoundation.

In 1973, on the eve of the French general elections, the editor of "L'Espresso" (1) invited Pannella to cover that event from Paris. His reports on the elections were however censored. This article is an account of that episode, but it also contains interesting opinions on French politics and on Italy's press system.

(La Prova Radicale - May 1973 from "Marco Pannella - Works and speeches - 1959-1980", Gammalibri, January 1982)

Is it possible for a simple democrat, for a liberal, to practise the journalistic "profession" with a minimum of rigour and dependability without any "deontological" alibis to cover the political and civil compromises and without political alibis to cover the deontological compromises? I believe so, but I also believe it is difficult, and that there are few examples supporting this possibility.

In this issue of La Prova Radicale, Sergio Saviane once again denounces the spreading mechanisms of self-censorship.

A recent issue of "Panorama" (2) concerning RAI-TV and its by now planetary system (not one star in the Italian editorial galaxy is not part of it) contains yet another honest contribution in terms of knowledge and popularization (i.e. laicization) on the servitudes and the benefits of the journalistic profession. Giorgio Bocca's (3) courageous and fraternal apology in favour of the rickety "Manifesto" (4) (and the similar attitude held by Livio Zanetti) also shows that even among our outstanding journalists there are some who have not abandoned all hopes of recovering the values of freedom and morality in the field of information and of professional journalism. It is a fact which should not be underestimated but on the contrary encouraged, even if, in the case of "Il Manifesto", it is time to say that a deliberate and commendable poverty, the rejection of all editorial and political compromises by means of the praxis of self-financing cannot, as such, solve the problem we are concerned about. At "Il Manifes

to", the use of censorship, of intermittent information at the service of peculiar personal or collective likings, of the means-newspaper as an element of power against the truth of militant journalism, have always been preminent and for the most still are. We feel that if we continue to denounce the "fascism" (absolutely non-existent from the point of view of the praxis) of journalists such as Enrico Mattei, or if we continue to be hypersensitive to the dubious fascism of a "paleo-fascist" such as Alberto Giovannini, we shall continue to produce those gross personifications of the neo-fascist or palaeo-corporative hypocrisy represented by the Movement of democratic journalists made up of journalists like Ceschia, Rocco Pellegrino, Manca, La Volpe and all those realistic-revolutionary journalists who get along with each other so well, and so much for journalistic honesty, for democracy, for freedom of information and for the freedom of citizens.

To say the truth, we are all a bit fascist. It is a fact that has to do with capacity and inadequacies more than with good will and good faith.

After ten years of total absence from a remunerated and organic "profession", I thought I could finally accept, from a personal and political point of view, a return to official "journalism". After a year of renewed knowledge, of more general dialogue, in January this year I accepted Livio Zanetti's (the editor of "L'Espresso") offer to cover the French elections and the subsequent events as a special correspondent from Paris. Ten weeks of professional performance at disastrous financial conditions but, in the context of a detailed and almost notarial agreement, with absolute freedom from censorship and control of any kind, including indirect ones. In order to make an example, and because I consider it dutiful to "inform" on the direct, minimal but nonetheless significant experiences which we accumulate on the mechanisms of "democratic" information, I would like to give a brief account of what happened on that occasion.

I had barely arrived in Paris that the program and the agreements had already been upset. The editorial director of the newspaper had arrived 24 hours before myself, with a tight schedule of meetings and interviews, whereas the correspondent from Paris, the unique and irreplaceable Giancarlo Marmori, had only just learned about our arrival. Clearly, it was a "corporate" misunderstanding, which was overcome in the end with realistic compromises, but the damage had been done. The program was all upset. And yet, because the agreement with Zanetti was that one of the interpretative keys of the "novelties" in the French situation was the motivated and documented revaluation of François Mitterrand (which I had been convinced of since 1959) and of his political line - rigorous, clean, effective, lay, democratic, clear, truly socialist - we agreed on publishing a four-page report of mine together with the other articles and interviews on the French socialist party, enabling the start of the agreed debate without too

many contradictions. My report had been on the one hand reduced by at least one third (the usual reasons to do with "space"), and on the other hand filled with compensatory supplements. I had repeatedly insisted on the fact that Mitterrand "believes in socialism", that he "no longer believes in the possibility of a democratic development based on capitalism". These were deliberate comments, aimed at confuting the old "cliché" of the transformist, contradictory, astute and ambitious politician which continued to circulate in those days. Even Spadolini (5), from the columns of "La Stampa" (6) judges and moralizes in this direction!

In short, the "editorial staff" from "L'Espresso" has nothing better to do but to censor every polemic hint against the disparagement of Mitterrand, while the statements in which I say that the socialist leader "believes in socialism" or "does not believe in capitalism" are invariably supplemented with the misleading clause "officially". Thus, I find myself forced to sign an article which artfully underlines that Mitterrand is only "officially" a socialist, furthermore hinting that the truth is another. And to leave no doubts about this unavowed truth, I am asked to write that Mitterrand had been the victim of dubious events such as the one of the "fake" attack at the Observatoire. This is yet another lie, infamous and yet widespread among the public opinion. Also from a moral point of view, Mitterrand managed not to be a victim of that attempt to lynch him, to such a point that even today, ten years later, the French and Gaullist "justice system" hasn't had the courage to carry on the judicial proceedings w

hich Mitterrand and the police had opened. Thus, after about ten days I returned to Rome: if the "agreements" worked out this way already in the beginning, better give it all up at once.

Back at the newspaper, I am accused of exaggerating a technical slip, of being guilty of excessive and formal rigour, but they all agree that the incident is deplorable. They guarantee that the fact will remain isolated, and they ask me to resume my work. I go back to Paris. I write a rather lengthy article on the French communist party, on Marchais and the "new communists". I underline the patent differences between the French communist party and the Italian one, reversing a widespread opinion: In Italy, I write, there is a democratic and liberal party, in France a Stalinist and sclerotic party which has been there for twenty years. I stress that in any case, it is inconceivable, even in the future, that the PCF will be to such a point co-responsible in the regime as to unconditionally support the doings of a person like Eugenio Cefis (7), as the Italian communist party did in 1963. On "L'Espresso", the sentence is thus modified: "nor is it conceivable that the PCF will ever tolerate the doings of ambiguous

personalities of the public and private finance, as the Italian communist party has". A precise, deniable yet documentable and signed statement is turned into a hint, which is typical of a part of our journalism which is expert in the art of saying without saying, hinting without stating.

Three weeks later I send a conclusive article. It is never published. Antonio Gambino suddenly realizes that the French elections are under way and comes up with an article in which he maintains the exact opposite of what had been published to that moment.

I leave Paris ten days before scheduled. Instead of the agreed seventy pages, "L'Espresso" has published half of them, and partly manipulated.

And yet, what has happened has been enough to prompt strong political pressures which, to say the truth, Zanetti has resisted. And in the end, in spite of everything, it has been possible to publish something which would never have circulated without "L'Espresso".

Now, why do I believe that such a marginal, apparently uninteresting and personal episode is worth telling? Because if this happens at "L'Espresso", it means that several colleagues of this paper also consider certain procedures normal and unavoidable. For the most part, individually considered, these colleagues are no doubt "democrats" and often more "left-winged" than myself, as well as sincere friends and good companions. Well then? Apart from anything else, these facts represent nothing new, nor are they tendencies that depend particularly on the current editor. For almost ten years, censorship has been the rule for all that concerned the Radical Party's initiatives and its very name. In fact, it is with Zanetti that the first signs of a détente have emerged. If there have been conflicts at all with Zanetti, it is because a minimum of honesty of information, also regarding civil rights organizations, has started to emerge. Barely three years ago, we experienced a hilarious adventure caused by an article

of mine on divorce and on the "Leone mediation", on the amendments passed by the Senate. For five weeks, the article was not published, and in the end, when it was finally published, it had been massacred: "clerical" had been changed into a demure "Christian Democrat", and "anticlerical" had become "lay".

This would not occur today, or rather, I would not be asked to write an article, and this represents a progress. However, don't the colleagues from "L'Espresso" think that it is better to "live" democracy than to preach it? Together with "Panorama", "L'Espresso" is perhaps the only political weekly newsmagazine that retains freedom and contradictions such as to justify hopes that it will not be absorbed by the regime. This is no doubt an important fact, but is it enough? Don't the colleagues from "L'Espresso" believe they should be the first to demand more rigorous and honest methods in the internal staff of the newspaper? It matters very little whether it is the editor or the ubiquitous "lawyer" or "self-censorship", the important thing is being coherent, especially since for "L'Espresso", this may not necessarily involve a loss of tranquillity or personal advantages.

There remains to say something to Livio Zanetti, publicly. We could not recognize his unquestionable merits if we were not as attentive (and perhaps more attentive) in pointing out his faults.

If I thought it right to inform the readers of La Prova Radicale of an apparently marginal episode, it is because many here think that the means qualify the aims, at least as much as the contrary, that the true democratic "contents" are methods more than formulas or proclamations; that the problems of the press lie not only in the most important and serious formal problems, for which we face trials and we risk a few years more of prison every day. On the other hand, precisely on this occasion, I have had the chance to notice how widespread the consent was among the staff of "L'Espresso" regarding the preoccupations and remarks I was expressing, and how limited the dissent was. Clearly, it is likely that I shall once more pay this behaviour with the persistence of an all-out ostracism, which will cut me off from every "professional" occupation for many years. It is a pity, but that is not the most important thing, at least for us and for me.

What we are interested in is something else. For example, we hope that "L'Espresso" will grow, that it will offer us other things possible apart from absence, distance and polemic. To nurture this expectation with hope, to try to do the most in terms of transparency in our own home, (here in the Radical Party), and not only in the filthy homes of Bernabei (8) and Monti or in the hypocritical homes of the "principled" Biagi (9) and Ronchey (10) is our way of being friends and having faith. It is likely that someone in Via Po will get mad and try to impose even more vetoes and censorship, especially against us: in that case, too bad for them.

Translator's notes:

(1) L'Espresso: Cultural, political and financial newsweekly established in Rome in 1955.

(2) Panorama: Cultural, political and financial newsweekly established in Milan in 1962.

(3) Giorgio Bocca: Italian columnist, writes for "La Repubblica".

(4) Il Manifesto: Monthly magazine founded in 1969 by exponents of the Italian Communist Party who were later expelled by the party. In 1971 the monthly became a daily newspaper.

(5) Giovanni Spadolini (1925): Historian and politician. Editor of "Il Resto del Carlino" (1955-68), and of the "Corriere della Sera" (1968-72); secretary of the Republican Party since 1979, minister for arts and culture (1974-76), and of education ((1979), Prime Minister since 1981.

(6) La Stampa: Daily newspaper founded in Turin in 1867.

(7) Eugenio Cefis (1921): President of the National Hydrocarbon Corporation (1967-71) and of the Montedison chemical company. (1971-77).

(8) Bernabei: Director of the RAI.

(9) Enzo Biagi (1920): columnist and author of best-sellers, writes for "La Repubblica" and "Panorama".

(10) Alberto Ronchey (1926): Editor of "La Stampa" (1968-73), writes for "La Repubblica"