President Meloni’s press conference | www.governo.it

INTRODUCTION BY PRESIDENT MELONI

Good morning everyone. 

Thank you for being here, thank you to the Order of Journalists, the Press Federation and the Parliamentary Press Association as well as to the many, allow me to say, colleagues I see here this morning. 

I will keep it quite brief, following on from what I have just heard. 

As you will understand, I do not believe that I need to defend myself regarding the expectation that I may represent a limit or a problem for press freedom and therefore for democracy. I want to say that I am somewhat surprised that the same address can at the same time state both the idea that this Government intends to restrict the rights of the press on the hand and, on the other, and I quote, “the careful and tireless efforts to support journalists’ work carried out by the Department for information and publishing headed by Undersecretary of State Barachini”, who is the Undersecretary in charge under this Government; all the work he does is therefore to be considered a choice by this Government and not simply a personal choice by said Undersecretary. 

I often hear it said, and also now, that I apparently do not reply enough to journalists’ questions, and also in this regard I would like to take this opportunity to give a brief reply. I asked Fabrizio Alfano to roughly work out how many questions I responded to in 2024, and the result of that calculation was 350, so more than a question a day. 

I made the choice not to participate in the press conferences following Council of Ministers meetings. This specific choice is above all due to the fact that, on the one hand, the Government is accused of having excessive ‘leaderism’ and, on the other, it is said that Giorgia Meloni is on her own in the Government, but Giorgia Meloni is not on her own in the Government. I believe it is right for the Ministers who have worked on the various measures to then be the Ministers who talk about them. 

Moving on, a number of quick reflections regarding the presumption of innocence and the defamation reform. 

On the presumption of innocence, you are well aware that Parliament, implementing a European directive of 2016 regarding full respect for the presumption of innocence, gave the Government a mandate to approve a legislative decree according to which a pre-trial detention order cannot be fully or partially published. This clearly means that journalists are nevertheless allowed to have the orders, but they are simply asked to provide a summary. In other words, it is absolutely possible to continue reporting on significant news stories; journalists are simply required not to copy and paste the orders because, as we know, these also contain confidential documents or excerpts of intercepted communications. In my view, there is therefore no limitation on the right to provide information or on the right to be informed, and I also believe you have seen that, in carrying out its mandate, the Government did not deem it appropriate to introduce harsher punishments for those who should violate these requirements. 

With regard to the defamation reform, as you know, this proposal was also a parliamentary initiative, conveying the call by [Italy’s] Constitutional Court; in the case of defamation by the press, it provides for imprisonment no longer being an option, and I absolutely and completely agree, but rather a fine. In certain cases, this fine can be up to EUR 50,000 but this regards the situation of a false news story being knowingly published with the intention of defaming someone. 

I frankly do not think that any journalist following a code of ethics should be concerned about such a clearly extreme case, i.e. the case of using one’s own profession, one’s press card, to voluntarily defame someone. We cannot consider such a case to be common, we must consider it for what it is, or in other words an extreme case. Among other things, I would also like to add that, as you know, the proposal states that if a defamatory act occurs and a refutation is published, then the case is closed.

I therefore sincerely believe that a proposal like this, as I have outlined it, cannot be defined as trying to limit freedom of press.

I agree that it is necessary to initiate a debate for the reform of this profession. As I have said on other occasions, I believe that the natural place for this to be done is Parliament. Parliament, for that matter, is already working on this, but clearly in this regard if you believe that the Government can even just use moral suasion to speed things up, then I absolutely agree. We already talked about this last year, and I shan’t go over it again; reference was made to Pope Francis and what he said on the issue of artificial intelligence – and, as you know, he said it during the G7 leaders’ summit following the Government’s specific choice for the matter of artificial intelligence under the Italian G7 Presidency to above all focus on the risks linked to its impact on the labour market.

This is something else I have said many times before, but I’ll gladly go over it quickly.

We have been used to progress that optimises human skills and an automation of production processes which, however, has always focused on physical labour, allowing workers to elevate their position, so to speak. Today we are faced with something completely different, because it is intellect that risks being replaced, and clearly the impact of this above all concerns highly skilled workers and professions. We held a specific event, a specific focus on this issue at G7 level.

The profession of journalism is among those most at risk and we therefore certainly have to take into account the extraordinary changes that are occurring, and must try to prevent their negative consequences.

With regard to the law on fair remuneration, how could I not agree with a law that bears my own name? 

A fair remuneration monitoring body has been established at the Ministry of Justice, which is fully operational; the Order of Journalists is also represented. I am absolutely in favour of this and ready to help. A number of professional associations have already implemented this legislation and so I am absolutely at your disposal. I am in favour.     

I shall come to a close now. You have flagged up a number of issues, and I too would like to raise one.

I am increasingly finding statements being attributed to me and quoted in the newspapers regarding things that not only have I never said but have never even thought. I very often see facts being reported that haven’t actually happened.

Starting from this press conference, I would like us to try and get off on a different foot. I assure you of my respect for your work, I assure you of even more respect for your work, and I would like to ask for respect for mine. 

Thank you.