in at least 40 years of RAI and 16 of satellite TV, I have never participated in a more ramshackle television program than the one they invited me to yesterday. The broadcast was Tagadà di La7, conducted by Tiziana Panella. The studios were those in via Novaro 32, where RAI studios 7 and 8 were once housed and where in the 70s, until the 1976 reform, I made at least 800 episodes of Ore20, the daily broadcast that was driving the young Tg2 at 20,30, the one conducted by Ennio Mastrostefano. The older ones will remember it. It all started with a phone call: "Would you like to come tomorrow to talk about roe deer at La 7?" "For which broadcast?" “Tagadà” “How? ““ Tagadà ”“ And what is it? What time do I have to be there? " "She will be on the air at 16 pm. Just come half an hour earlier" "Who is conducting her, who are the other guests?" “The Panella. For other news, the editorial office will call you in the morning. We will send to pick you up with a car "" No need, I know the way "The next day at 11 someone calls me. Grace, perhaps one of the authors. "What is the theme?" “Roe deer” “Yes, I understand. But more precisely? Come here and you will know. Ah, please. Come dressed as a hunter. " “Are you serious? Should I come in costume? " "Yes, but without a gun." "Sure, without a gun?"
The next morning, while waiting for the hour, I first collected the data on the management of roe deer in Italy, those of Ispra, 11 years old and the most recent ones from research friends. Not being new to these experiences, I thought that I would find myself faced, as always, with some fierce environmentalists or at best, scholars and researchers not entirely in favor of hunting, even if not hunting. but management I thought we would talk. Precisely because the theme was: roe deer, a species that can only be hunted in selection, according to culling plans drawn up after careful censuses and very respectful of the structure of the populations. The numbers are in our favor: the type of management that is practiced on ungulates in Italy is a winning one. In a few years we have managed to increase the populations of wildlife to reach those of European countries that we have always considered as models to be achieved. In particular, Franco Perco, director of the Sibillini Park and one of the greatest European experts on the roe deer species, even claims that we should be close to one million, as many as there are in Hungary. I guess they also talk about a wolf, I thought. Alessandro Bassignana had just phoned me to tell me that an editorial staff of LA7 had asked him for data on wolves in Piedmont. In this way I also collected elements on the wolf, if anything the debate had extended to this species as well. In short, I made preparations. Let's see on the Internet what this “Tagadà” is and who is the presenter. The transmission is an afternoon container where we talk about various humanity. The presenter, a very beautiful woman, was present with a respectable curriculum. Well then. What's the problem? The debate will fly high, led by this highly experienced colleague.
At 15,30, I show up for the appointment, dressed not in camouflage as they would have expected, but in Saharan. It is a dress that I normally wear during the summer and not necessarily during safaris. They usher me into a cramped room where guests usually wait their turn. There was already a nice gentleman in a suit and tie. He introduces himself - He is a farmer from the province of Asti who complains about the damage that the local roe deer do to the vineyards and fruit trees. Two more people enter, a beautiful girl and a tall, badly dressed guy. The girl looks at me and without even introducing herself she says: "Are you a hunter?" I replied: “Yes, too. But first of all I am a man of good reading and sound principles, a journalist, even a grandfather. And I imagine she is a vegan, by profession. " He made a face and didn't answer. Ah, I thought, let's get off to a good start. With the tall one. who took care to introduce himself, began an intense conversation in a low voice. I ask to speak with the authors to know the topic of the debate. Roe deer, they tell me. The roe deer, how? Too many, too few, decimated by the wolf, the roe deer and damage to agriculture. And who intervenes? Those he sees: a farmer, an environmentalist and an ethologist. Who is? He will be presented in the studio with his titles. And how much time do we have? Twenty minutes.
We are "mic", as we say in the jargon, and we sit in the studio. The journalist doesn't do the honors, doesn't say hello, doesn't even introduce herself. He attacks immediately under his breath, but so softly that the farmer and me. a little deaf, we ask you to speak louder. We feel nothing. Perhaps it announces the theme of the debate. But in the meantime, the floor is given to a guest from the previous space who had not been able to express her opinion on social centers or family homes. Time passes. The lady stole five of our twenty minutes. A film made on the hills of Asti is "launched", where farmers complain about the damage of roe deer, which graze the shoots of the vine, devour the fruit and bark the stems of the plants to free the velvet from the stage and to leave visual signals and olfactory of their presence on that territory. Ten minutes left. We are introduced. Just name. But how do people know whether or not we have the right to speak? Who the fuck is the ethologist, which university is he from? And what title is the beautiful vegan talking about? To the generic one of his sect? And me? he could choose from many: director of the Sky hunting channel, president of the ethics commission of the CIC, a TV journalist who grew up in these studies, an expert in problems related to the management of fauna and the territory, a writer, a mad visionary who accepts such confused invitations. I don't think the editorial staff didn't write who we are and why we're there in the script. The only certain role was that of the farmer who is rightly invited to speak immediately after the film. The solution he proposed is only one: shoot. Jump on the vegan: why kill them? they can be chemically castrated, moved to a protected area. And anyway, says the other, the hunters cannot do the management. Alas, I thought. Other than flying high. Here we hear the usual bullshit. The ethologist intervenes and still shoots at zero on the hunters, it is all their fault, they have destroyed territories and fauna, poison wolves and bears. Wolves are now almost extinct. I remained silent, without interrupting. I was waiting for them to give me the floor to say: hormonal castration is a crime, taking them to a protected area is even worse because the invasions of the fields are mainly the work of animals that come from protected areas. I would have said to the ethologist, if they had given me time: but if we have destroyed everything, who will damage the crops? Only at the news that the wolves are in extinction, I could not hold back a cry. But what does this say? The wolves are now ten thousand and they are the new problem! Finally they give me the floor and, continually interrupted by the vegan, I explain that in twenty years of managing large wildlife in Italy we have now reached numbers that are the envy of Central European countries. For example, we have a million roe deer, as many as there are in Hungary. Is this how we destroyed the fauna? At one point, tired of the constant interruptions of the vegan, I said to her: “But shut up. Go and browse! " Here I think many at home have thought: quanno ce vo '. there I go! Reprimanded by the teacher, who seems to me to have called me rude and instead let insults and interruptions towards me pass, I have no longer had the word. After more chatter, ridiculous proposals (but why don't you make fences around the crops? The question to farmers sounds like this: why don't you spend more money on making fences?) I desperately asked for the floor to explain how the mechanism of management and consequent control of wild species works. Finally, when the credits are already running, I am given 30 seconds to say that: censuses are made, then sampling plans, then the institutions entrust us with the killing. Here I "fade". the audio is cut off. End of transmission. I missed a fuck off, which was clearly perceived during the credits. The sentence with which I would have liked to conclude was: the censuses provide us with underestimated values and the institutions, where there are animal rights activists and anti-hunts, give us too low a number of killing. Here then the problems explode like those denounced by this grotesque, unrealistic, amateurish broadcast, opened by an excellent filmed service and wasted by a partisan conductor, unable to distribute the roles and to keep time and arguments in hand. The authors, who had realized how a debate that could have provided and perhaps indicated solutions had failed, asked me at the door of the study: “We will return to the subject and so you can complete your thought”.
I'm sorry for La7, where every night I watch the excellent news of Enrico Mentana, programs of great excellence such as 8 1/2 and Crozza. In the next few days, I will look at Tagada from time to time and follow the presenter's work. I am not vindictive and I always grant a proof of appeal. Even if yesterday they ruined my day, she, the vegan, the authors and the imaginary ethologists.
Dear Dr Modugno,
I would like to try, with all the respect it deserves, to respond to this outburst, which I understand very well, from a human and professional point of view, but I cannot agree.
I saw the broadcast. I knew it was going to air, and I was ready: I was afraid she would fall into the media trap that was easy to expect, and I even wrote it on her Facebook page. Which unfortunately happened.
You say you were prepared, but in reality you were not ready, Dr Modugno, because you did not know what awaited you.
You see, she can be very well prepared, and have great experience and professionalism, which she is, but in a television pulpit she has the same visibility as the last vegan idiot. Didn't you know Martani? Now he knows her. Those who frequent Facebook know it: I would say that for some it is a myth, for others it is a negative myth.
I did not know the ethologist, but three words were enough to frame him: he knew very well what to say, and when and how to interrupt her.
The result was disastrous: inviting Martani to browse had a horrendous media impact. She has gone from the side of reason, as my grandfather said, to the most vulgar wrong: she perfectly represented the crude and violent hunter, as he wanted to appear, which she is certainly not.
You see, if you frequented Facebook more, taking a look at its groups, vegans in the first place, and the common language used, understood not so much as words, but as a current mentality, you would realize that the world has changed. Worse.
In modern society, it is not so much being that matters as appearing. There are very specific communication techniques in this regard, which know how to get to the belly of the people, in the few seconds of television time.
With certain groups, there is no reasoning, not even with the evidence in hand: an example is the group of antivaccinists, who for years have denied any scientific evidence, insisting on the relationship between autism and vaccinations.
The truth does not matter: the final result matters. Unfortunately, she lost this challenge, but it was all written and wanted. Today, animalism is an audience.
I believe that the various hunting associations should set up various press offices dedicated to modern media communication, because image is everything nowadays. There is no shortage of money, with everything we pay.
This is what large economic groups have done (for example the Revenue Agency): there will be a reason.
Consider this experience as it had been "a pan" in the woods. Nothing more.
But think about it, because the hunting world needs people like you.
Good luck.