Good communicators gain criticisms by the few and votes by the many. At a superficial level, one could argue that this is the main lesson Italians can learn from the first Leaders' debate in the UK. This debate saw the rise of  Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats leader from underdog to potential leader of Her Majesty’s country. The accusations Clegg attracted – “the biggest celebrity discovery since [the talent show star] Susan Boyle” said a columnist of the Daily Mail – reminded me a lot what the Italian left usually says about Silvio Berlusconi, before having to explain his latest success in the polls. 

Yet, the Leaders' debate and the following rise of Mr Clegg has more to teach to Italy than the importance of being good communicators (something that, arguably, Italy already knew). The debate emphasised the importance of unpolarised, detached from politics, media in promoting change. And, consequently, the difficulties in obtaining it in a context where there is an anomalous relationship between media and democracy. 

The debate over the relationship between media and democracy in Italy rests over the controversial dual role of Silvio Berlusconi as Italian Prime Minister and as media tycoon. The first role grants him power over the choice of board members and news editors of the three State TV channels. The second role means that he owns the three Mediaset channels. This combination, opponents argue, is such that he has an unprecedented influence over the political choice of the electorate.

This argument essentially rests on two logical steps. The first one is that the control he exerts is such as to influence the type of news released on TV, whilst the second is that the news and comments presented on TV have an impact on the political choices of the electorate. A number of studies have tried to single out and measure the importance of these two effects. Berlusconi supporters deny the existence of either of the two links. TVs are not influenced by the Prime Minister and, in fact, most programs are against him. Moreover, they argue that Italians are not stupid and thus form their opinions independently of what is shown on TV. Their decision to vote for Berlusconi depends on what they see in their everyday life and on the positive impact that government action has on them. This second link is also the target of many impartial commentators. Although they do not deny that Berlusconi may have an influence on TVs, they think that the overall impact of this control on political outcomes is not so determinant as TVs matter relatively little in orienting the choices of the electorate.

The outcomes of the recent European and regional election has been used by these commentators to support their viewpoint. The electorate has appeared rather immobile, with some shifts mailnly occurring within the coalitions, or towards the decision to abstain. However, this argument suffers from one important logical flaw. The fact that no shift has occurred does not mean that no shift may have occurred in presence of a different media system.

This is precisely where the UK experience can teach Italy something. The UK has recently seen the spectacular turnaround in the polls experienced by the Liberal Democrats following the extremely positive performance by their leader, Nick Clegg. Obviously, this is no assurance that the Lib Dems will be in power as of May, since we do not know (a) how well he will do in the remaining days of electoral campaign and (b) whether polls will actually translate into votes. However, the debate still means that TV may still matter in influencing political outcomes and in changing the status quo.

The fact that this did not occur in Italy has two main explanations. The first one has to do with journalistic ethos. That Nick Clegg did better in the debate was recognised by almost every single media in the UK. Even the bastion of British conservatism, The Daily Telegraph, and the left-wing-leaning Guardian had day-after headlines  clearly stating this view. Journalists put the truth of the matter before their political tendencies. This is something which would have not occurred in Italy: the newsrooms would have either polarised on opposite opinions, depending on the political orientation of the editor/journalists, or they would have just presented the different spins given by politicians of both sides, without adjudicating between the two. A mechanism similar to the one I have outlined for the case of scandals would have been in place and no vote would have changed side.

The second difference has to do with the magnitude of the change presented. Differently from the case of the Italian Elections, the Lib Dems may represent a real change in the eyes of the British electorate. Nick Clegg was seen as a truly new character, and his party as the vehicle of fresh ideas. Admittedly, this hardly occurred in the fore-mentioned elections, were the Democratic Party in Italy was seen as “more of the same”.

In the light of the British PM debate, the Italian left may be right in demanding a new type of journalism as a pre-condition for allowing change to take place. No change will occur, however, until that word is shown on the faces of the party’s program and, more importantly, of its candidates.