Last Sunday, Silvio Berlusconi was attacked by Massimo Tartaglia, a 42 year-old man with a history of mental illness. Tartaglia threw a small reproduction of the Milan Cathedral at him. Berlusconi's face turned into a blood mask, as he suffered two broken teeth and a broken nose.

The photos of the violated face of one of the most image-conscious politicians of the contemporary world made the front page of the newspapers around the globe. This was partly because, having been pushed into his car by his bodyguards in the aftermath of the attack, Berlusconi boldly re-emerged to look at his aggressor in the eyes, showing outstanding courage.

This was not just a sign of bravery. Despite being in shock, Berlusconi probably realised that his wounded face could be an extremely powerful political message. For many weeks he had denounced a campaign of hatred against his persona: the violated face was the proof that he was correct. 

As it was made clear by the comments of many of his ministers, the attack has been used by the centre-right as proof of the "fact" that the centre-left and left-leaning newspapers have poisoned the Italian political climate. Transforming political attacks into personal attacks – many in the centre-right argue – was a very dangerous move indeed, as it could inspire madmen such as Tartaglia to commit acts of violence.

Their criticism of the newspapers has been particularly vehement. On Tuesday, Fabrizio Cicchitto, a former socialist and member of the P2 masonic lodge, made it very clear that he thought La Repubblica must be considered responsible for the violent attack. Ezio Mauro, the editor of the left-leaning paper, rebutted these accusations in a column, in which he restated his newspaper’s right to criticise the Prime Minister while, at the same time, condemning the attack. The centre-right also put pressure on Marco Travaglio, a columnist of Il Fatto Quotidiano, a newspaper which has been openly critical of Berlusconi. Travaglio was accused of being a "mediatic terrorist". His newspaper has started to collect signatures in his defence.

The Tartaglia incident has two possible interpretations, neither of which is consistent with the simplified rhetoric expressed by some in the centre-right. The first interpretation suggests that one should stop looking for implicit instigators for something that ought to be reduced to a “madman hits Prime Minister” case. However, this interpretation ignores the fact that the political fight in Italy has certainly become more bitter in recent months. Newspapers and politicians have increasingly launched reciprocal inflammatory attacks, and the words used in the days following the aggression show that this has certainly not stopped. 

The second, more plausible, interpretation is that the centre-right is correct in arguing that this is not just a “madman hits PM" case. However, if the climate was poisoned, there is no single political agent (be it a party, newspaper or association) which can assume sole responsibility for.

Attacking journalists in the aim of exploiting a tragic event to gain political advantage over a dissenting press is, to use a boxing metaphor, punching below the waist. The fact that Berlusconi is the victim of an horrendous crime does not affect the right of newspapers to criticise him for his policies or to investigate his conduct. Moderation and criticism can coexist in the media and in democracy. It is a fragile equilibrium, but one with which Italian politicians, of both sides, should certainly become somewhat more familiar.