Francesco Fredella July 08, 2023
“This photo must not be taken,” one might say. And right: It is the frame (excerpt) of a video clip from the live coverage of the funeral of Silvio Berlusconi. On one side Barbara d’Urso prays with folded hands, on the other – very close – Myrta Merlino (who will take her place on Canale5 in the afternoon). However, some newspapers wanted to use this framework to report on the latest happenings at Mediaset, resulting in Barbara d’Urso being dropped from the program and putting an end to her historic Afternoon5. Now, however, the moderator is not there and attacks, after the bombastic interview a few days ago in La Repubblica.
This time, d’Urso is pointing the finger – and threatening lawsuits – against those who used this photo on social media and in the newspapers, while mocking the end of her broadcast. It’s not the first time d’Urso has been attacked online. Why the media fuss over this photo? On the other hand, when the word “slut” appeared on a Biscione account a few weeks ago, why didn’t anything happen? She herself talks about it in an interview with La Repubblica: “On March 26th I was at the theater in Bari, Verissimo was broadcast on Canale 5 and Domenica on Rai 1, with my 90-second video message for my friend.” Gabriella Labate, the woman of the Raf. Message authorized by the news director Crippa and by Restelli. On the QuiMediaset account – D’Urso continues to Repubblica – the following tweet appears under the photo of me and Mara: “What an awkward thing. Silvy seems fine with me, Troie.” There are only two minutes left, whoever has the keys to enter cancels it. The account claims to have been hacked and the next day QuiMediaset apologizes to the offended people and followers and admits that it was an internal error. But what happened that afternoon? Why wasn’t there a crusade against the person responsible (mysterious) for this tweet? Questions, only questions. for now.
Barbara is angry about what happened. And she writes: “My friends, I had decided to remain silent and I will continue to do so until the right moment comes.” But now, unfortunately, I am forced to make a clarification. Unreasonably, some websites and others have been posting a PRIVATE photo of me for days, giving this photo causal significance to the harmful behavior towards me by the company I work for. It all starts with a picture from a news program of me in church clasping my hands during the presentation of the chalice. A gesture that I feel is mine, representing me that I am a believer and free to pray as I please, be it a funeral or other religious event. The gesture went viral on social media and the following night at a private party we took this self-deprecating photo with some friends, alluding to all the posts making fun of me. It was a way of just making fun of myself, apparently with no derogatory or insulting intentions toward a funeral, even in the name of my faith. This was a purely private recording that should by no means have become public, as evidenced by the presence next to me of a person closely associated with the company I work for, who clearly has no interest in the funeral that took place earlier to denigrate. Nobody ever authorized it, it was done on a friend’s phone who should have just sent it to me, but that’s not how it happened. It is highly misleading to think that I am desecrating the memory of a missing person and their funeral, even misleading people into assuming that the willingness to leave me at home without warning is related to this episode, which turned out to be completely unrelated turns out.
There is no cause and effect relationship, so much so that up until 2.30pm on June 26 my manager kept talking about a two-year prime-time contract.” And then again: “But my lawyers have already prepared appropriate safeguards. In fact, I would like to remind you that the publication of photos related to a person’s private life and which the person has not authorized to authorize is a violation of Article 10 of the Civil Code and Articles 96 and 97 of Law 633/ 41 (LDA) as well as the data protection legislation (DIgs 101/2018), making responsible both the author of the first dissemination and those who continue to disseminate and maintain it published, since I have already received warnings from my lawyers who were aware of it , even indirectly, or who now learn about it.
In the lengthy post, d’Urso explains, “The instrumental juxtaposition between the public photograph, which shows me in an attitude of prayer at a religious event, and that which shows me in a private situation damages my honor and reputation.” The communications in which this instrumental combination took place, with the consequent false statements that wanted to attribute to this photo the motivation for Mediaset’s unilateral decision to interrupt my presentation of Pomeriggio Cinque, have already been challenged as defamatory by my lawyers, with the Objective ” Initiation of resulting criminal and civil lawsuits and to the data protection guarantor in order to obtain an appropriate penalty and damages. Responsible journalists are also reported for violations of the code of conduct of the professional code.