Dear Director, I am writing to you after having seen the episode of Le Iene on Thursday 28 in April because I am sleepless. I do not feel to say that the whole transmission was an example of a bad television and among other things it would have made no sense to write to its headline, which deals with very different themes, perhaps little followed by a wide audience. I am writing because, fortunately in an inconvenient time for many Italians, a report by Mr. Luigi Pelazza was aired, I do not think he is a journalist, on the waste of public money attributable to the highest position of the Navy. I allow myself to express, on your platform, if you wish to publish it, some free reflection on the service broadcast.
The service which, as announced, seemed to have to reveal who knows what hidden truth actually was yet another example of the worst television to which Italian public opinion is very often the unaware victim.
The author would have liked to describe the wastes put in place by the Navy at the hands of its summit, which is depicted as a despot, authoritarian and not authoritative, prone to the good life.
What does it seem obvious in my opinion?
The prejudicial approach of Pelazza in realizing the service which, with a technical and attentive eye, was achieved by repeatedly cutting the interviewee and the response of the interlocutor in order to make it appear to the public exactly as the author of the service had set for himself . The interviewee does not want to give the interviewee the opportunity to explain but, on the contrary, it is artfully cut so that his thesis (prejudicial) can be confirmed. The technique is composed of various devices and is enriched by terms that want to show exactly who, who is interviewed, is in difficulty even if he is not. This is demonstrated by the fact that when the interviewer shows a series of documents in support of his thesis, which the interviewee tried to say incomplete because he lacked his decrees communicating to his offices to renegotiate the price of the interventions, given that the price requested by Fincantieri appeared to be madness, Pelazza mounted the piece artfully, hinting that there was an energetic opposition from the staff of staff who attended the interview, I believe, until the attempt to block the shooting. And good Pelazza who from modern Diogene of Sinope, which one would like to propose, that is the patient search for the truth with the lantern, turns instead, suddenly, into a deaf and implacable judge. To nothing seem to serve the efforts of the admiral and his staff, in my humble opinion, guilty only of having given a great lesson in democracy, agreeing to answer Mr. Pelazza's questions.
Of course I can only imagine the state of admiral De Giorgi who knows, as a servant of the state, his duty to give an account to the citizens of the expenses that are charged to him and that he would have ordered, but always in the functions of his office and his role. Is it not up to the chief of staff of an armed force to make sure that the military instrument (in this case the ships) are always efficient and appropriate for the tasks assigned to it? These are certainly important figures. The interviewer, supported by the testimony, to be verified, by another officer, Ernesto Nencioni, who I believe is a retired Navy engineer and when serving as director of the direction of naval armaments, a technical direction that supports decisions and choices of the maximum charge of the armed force, he accuses him of having spent, on a whim according to the accusers, 45 million € for the modification of some on-board environments. The explanation given by Admiral De Giorgi who tried to make it clear that Fincantieri's request represented a first initial phase of a negotiation that instead ended with a much lower expense seemed to be worthless, I think the sum of 14 € million, and advantageous for the adaptation of the FREMM Frigates (Multi Mission Frigates) to the new operational requirements to which the Navy is called to face.
I wonder, but if these required changes have made the new frigates up-to-date and have spared us to see new but old ships at birth, we should not be grateful to this intervention and to the vigilance exercised for the realization of good ships, which will perhaps be attractive. for the foreign market?
I would also like to express, entrusting myself to the distant memories I have from the military service carried out in the Navy, that the internal documentation between offices and departments is to be intended for an exclusive office use, precisely because it represents an exchange of opinions and information that find its advertising only with the official documentation that comes out to be signed by the top management or the authority in charge. It seems to me that the admiral explained that the document that showed Pelazza was a "note", that is, always from the memories of then if something has not changed, a particular internal document, that an office or a department draws up to inform the authority superior and aimed at obtaining a decision by the authority itself that expresses it with a decree written by hand and in red pen, as was tradition.
The effort, vain, I caught in the service, by Admiral De Giorgi to make the interviewer understand that the copy he showed and had in his hand was just incomplete because it lacked those decrees, instead present in the copy that we see that the staff wanted to show during that clumsy attempt to interrupt and with which the admiral expressed his disappointment for the expense and ordered the negotiation process. Attempt to interrupt, moreover, that Pelazza has well mounted to try to show instead that the admiral was in a difficulty, which in reality is not grasped, in the tone and content of his answers.
It is clear to show that there was an opposition and a contrast reinforces the feeling of difficulty in which, in Pelazza's head, Admiral De Giorgi should have been found before his accusations, a difficulty in which, however, Admiral De Giorgi evidently did not feel and the fact of having consented to the interview by promptly answering all the questions proves it.
One thing is to make a joke and stuffed with gossip by mixing different information, most of it deriving from anonymous dossiers, disguised as a journalistic investigation, and instead doing serious journalism by honestly interviewing a person and wanting to understand and then inform the public about how they are things really go.
Trying to be impartial should be the rule, obviously disregarded. Obviously the hyenas are not a newspaper and "what they do for a job", as Pelazza says, but it should also be clear to the public that what they are seeing is not information but only an art show.
One wonders who benefits from all this? Certainly to those who find the decisionist presence of a leader who does not shy away from making decisions is uncomfortable and who knows, who makes decisions, without too much orthodoxy as a team, is inconvenient, especially if this person in the vicinity of the natural expiry of his assignment would have been in predicate or could have gone to occupy other prestigious institutional positions also because well considered by the government politicians. I learn this from recent reports.
So, but this is only a personal consideration, it is easy to dismantle this credibility by throwing some mud on the person and who cares if the right of the Italian people to be informed is scorned by throwing everything to the people with the gossip technique worst. Everything is based on an anonymous file, you take some pictures out of context, like the one shown with the glass of prosecco on the bridge wing, when he was in command of the high ground forces in 2006. This I can personally confirm because on that occasion I had a friend boarded the aircraft carrier Garibaldi that kept me informed about the activities they were doing, and told me precisely about the good result achieved and that at the end of that exercise even Admiral De Giorgi had toasted with the commander of that time for the excellent result achieved (naval tradition in all the Marine of the World) and instead it is reported, decontextualized, to show that the admiral is over the top and lover of the good life.
What remains? He certainly remains a soldier esteemed by those who know him and not by those who consider him uncomfortable and unaligned, one might say, very embittered by what is happening after 45 years of honorable career and many results achieved for the Armed Force, not least that of the naval law that will allow the Navy to survive, and personal, such as the prestigious Military of the Year award conferred in 2007 by an international military-technical commission in America for what he did at the helm of the mission Leonte in 2006, but it is obvious, those are non-Italian Americans, and on one side the official documents, which Pelazza did not want to show, but in which the public could have understood that the admiral acted in compliance with the law and for the benefit of many sailors. Sailors, who then, on those ships will have to spend even 6 months at sea continuously, away from Italy and who will certainly thank him for the improvements requested and obtained by Fincantieri at a more honest price.
This was of no interest to the hyenas.
Dr. Giovanni De Robertis
(a simple sailor who served the State embarked on a ship Vittorio Veneto in the 1997, under the command of the then Captain of Vascello Giuseppe De Giorgi and supporter of admirals and state leaders passionate and honest)
