The decision to suspend talk shows on RAI was seen by many as a devise by the majority to block Michele Santoro, a journalist whose left-leaning TV program, Annozero, is detested by many on the right for its strong anti-Berlusconi rhetoric. Michele Santoro responded by putting on a show, Rai per una notte, which was transmitted on web streaming last night, receiving substantial mediatic attention.

The show hosted a number of journalists and comedians who have reasons to believe that their work is obstacled (censored, some would say) by Berlusconi. Talk show anchor-men such as Gad Lerner and Giovanni Floris were there, as well as Daniele Luttazzi, a comedian who has been banned from RAI also because of his strong anti-Berlusconi views. 

The positions expressed in the show were extreme, as you would expect by a program constructed around the topic of censorship. Luttazzi was particularly sour ("it is noble to hate scoundrels" he said in his controversial speech), but I would have been surprised of the opposite, given the reason for his long-term absence from TV.

There are three sets of considerations which are worth making. The first one concerns the economic damage done to RAI. Today La Repubblica, a left-leaning newspaper, has published an inquest on the financial difficulties of RAI. According to Il Sole 24 Ore, cancelling talk shows cost the Italian PSB 7 million Euros in lost advertising revenue. An event such as Santoro's, which could not be transmitted on RAI, would have certainly helped filling the empty coffers of Italian TV. Italian PSB is run overlooking the financial aspect of this management, something which may prove extremely tricky in the long run. 

However, one could argue that the financial objective is not the sole one a PSB company should have in mind. Its aim should be to give a service to the public. The definition of "public service" is the second theme emerging from Santoro's show. By preventing Santoro from going live on its channels, RAI may have given a service to its viewers as it has not voiced obviously biased comments right before an election. However, this view cannot explain why, conversely, the Prime Minister is allowed to go live on RAI news, giving repeated interviews in which he is equally offering a biased view of the themes discussed in this electoral campaign (the presence of different parties on the news is so unbalanced that the Communication Authority has fined TG1 for this disparity). If Santoro was excluded as he was not offering a service to the public, it is legitimate to wonder why the PM's almost unquestioned interventions are allowed to go live. 

An obviously linked question, and the third theme of this discussion, is whether Santoro's program constituted an electoral damage for the majority. According to Il Giornale, a right-leaning newspaper, banning Santoro from the TV screens has actually increased the expectations around his program, helping his cause rather than harming it. According to Aldo Grasso, a Corriere columnist, the extremism of the program, partly linked to the TV ban, may have actually helped the right-wing parties. I tend to agree with Sandro Giglioli, that, in the short run, the impact of Rai per una Notte will be very small. Those who have gone on the web to watch Santoro already vote against the majority and the program will have changed very few minds.

Gilioli rightly argues that the impact of Rai per una Notte may have been a long term one, that is contributing towards making Italians more accustomed with new media, such as the internet. It is a slow process, but one which may be accelerated by programs such as Santoro's.