Analysis of sources
On Sunday, November 17, RaiTre aired yet another example of animal rights propaganda disguised as investigative journalism. The television report, signed as usual by Giulia Innocenzi and broadcast by Report, has sparked a lively debate on intensive pig farming in Italy. At the heart of the controversy are images presented as evidence of alleged mistreatment. However, a closer look at the sources and contexts raises doubts about their authenticity and use. A crucial point concerns the provenance and editing of the images. Not only were they taken from three different farms, but some even date back several years. The use of these shots, decontextualized and shown as if they were current, raises questions about the intent behind the reportage.
Visual manipulation
Furthermore, many of these images were taken by the farmers themselves to send to veterinarians, with the aim of improving animal welfare. In one specific case, the footage showed a farm the day after a tornado that had caused extensive damage, including the temporary presence of asbestos. The farm was renovated immediately after, but this detail was not mentioned. This is therefore a clear example of visual and narrative manipulation. Those who work in the pig sector know that unexpected events, such as the death of an animal during the night, can happen. Farmers follow precise protocols: the carcasses are removed the following morning, respecting the regulations and ensuring hygiene and safety. In the case cited, the sudden mortality rate stands at 2%, a figure that represents a positive record at European level and confirms the attention to animal health.
No irregularities
Yet, these “investigations” try to transform exceptional situations into normality, ignoring frequent checks by the competent authorities, such as the NAS, which inspected one of the farms involved without finding any irregularities. A narrative, that of the reportage, that seems oriented more towards emotional indignation than information. Nothing new, in reality. No less important is the question of the time elapsed between the creation of the images and their diffusion. Why have these shots, even five years old, remained unused for so long? Is it possible that they were strategically preserved to be exploited at the right time, creating a media case? The management of this material, and the way in which it is brought to light, raises doubts about the transparency of animal rights organizations. And of those who provide them with certain information.
Broader questions
In this context, Assosuini emerges as the only association ready to tell the truth without filters. With data in hand and a transparent approach, it counters an often ideologized narrative. It is therefore not surprising that its visibility annoys many, both inside and outside the sector. For those who criticize the association, it is not only the content of its complaints that are disturbing, but also the fact that there is an authoritative voice capable of breaking the unanimous chorus of misinformation. The story in question does not only concern the fate of pig farms, but raises broader questions about the relationship between information, ethics and reality. Readers, viewers, operators in the sector and breeders have the task of discerning between those who work for improvement and those who use sensationalist strategies to advance their agendas. Assosuini will continue on its path of correct information and denunciation of the fact that, as is right, those who do not produce according to the rules cannot and must not be part of certain realities. Such as that of the Consortia. But we will return to this issue, which in our opinion deserves much more attention than the usual animalist-style reportage (source: Assosuini)