This is the answer of Il Giornale (the newspaper of Berlusconi) to The Economist. Translated in english.
This is the original article:
I cannot stand the moralism of The Economist. I cannot stand its tendency to measure the world by different yardstick. I cannot stand that tone of “Fronda” newspaper (Fronda is a group of people that opposes to someone), but really chic, that it actually hides a very politically correct conformism. We retrace the story of this weekly. How many denunciations are very brave or mould-breaker? They are few or almost non-existent. Yes, it has to be appreciated for its economic and geostrategic analysis, but, when it judges the situations in each country, it cannot repress the temptation to raise the finger and to judge everyone from top to bottom with British snobbery tipical of colonialism.
It has never loved Berlusconi, as we know. And it still does not to love him. In the last issue it draws a very adventurous comparison. According to The Economist our premier is comparable to “Cetto
La Qualunque”, the popular character played by Antonio Albanese, described as a corrupt and vulgar businessman from . The pretext is the Bunga-Bunga, obviously, and the private habits of Berlusconi, that are judged scandalous and unacceptable by The Economist. Calabria
After retracing the stages of the Ruby-gate, The Economist concludes underlining that “there are two big dangers in this situation” . The first is that “the government will not be able to do anything for the economy of the country”, the second is that he may seek a new mandate to crush the independence of the judiciary in an election. Therefore? “Poor
”, obviously. Legitimate opinion; but The Economist would be more credible if it did not continue to make a mistake that is frequent among the journalists: persisting to judge other countries with their moral parameters, rather than trying to understand the reality with the citizens’ s eyes of those countries. Italy
If Berlusconi had been English, he would have resigned since a long time. Knowing the British logics, he would have never become premier. But he is Italian, and Italians elected him three times, and in these hours their judgement of the Ruby-gate is not univocal. There is who simpathizes with the Bench, and who, on the contrary, thinks it is overtaxing his power.The Economist should explain it all, but it does not. It prefers to repeat the same commonplaces.
It would be more useful if The Economist, with genuinely classical liberal spirit, dug to other realities, that are more important than the Italian one, shroud of silence. Maybe because they are rigorously British.
Maybe because they are rather clandestine than classical liberal.
We would like, for example The Economist to explain us what the Bilderberg is and why its journalists do not write even a line about the meeting of the most influent group of the world, that gets together politicians, bankers, top managers and opinion leaders, although its journalists are always invited, and with honours. We would like to know it. But I am afraid that this legitimate request of us loyal readers and classical liberal will never be granted. Who knows why...