Why it is necessary to defend the pluralism of information
The judgment of 15 April touches a sensitive point in our democratic order: the protection of fragile voices in the media ecosystem
3' min read
3' min read
Pluralism of information is like oxygen: invisible, but vital. No democracy really breathes if the public air is saturated with a few loud voices and deaf to the soft but essential sounds of local communities. This is why the 15 April ruling by the Constitutional Court, President Amoroso and Judge Editor Pitruzzella, while declaring the questions raised by the Council of State to be unfounded, touches on a sensitive point of our democratic order: the protection of fragile voices in the media ecosystem.
At the heart of the case is the 'preferential step', a mechanism that reserves 95 per cent of public funds for the top 100 ranked local broadcasters. A logic that aims at efficiency, but which may translate into concentration. Because if the idea is to reward those with structure, ratings and continuity, the risk is to build a pluralism with selective geometry: open in theory, but difficult to achieve for those starting from the margins.
The Court, while legitimising the legislator's choice -- does not ignore the deeper implications. And it does so in a crucial passage of its reasoning, which seems to address not only the law, but also politics and society: information today lives in a radically changed ecosystem. Technical barriers have fallen, access costs have lowered, the internet has multiplied channels, voices, and opportunities for expression.
Yet, this abundance - apparently democratising - does not guarantee quality. Quantitative pluralism, the Court essentially writes, can generate disorder, noise, polarisation. The multiplication of sources does not coincide with the multiplication of responsibility. And the crisis of professional journalism, especially at the local level, risks leaving a void that the network does not fill, but exposes.
The judgment cites a key fact: the amount of information and views has increased enormously thanks to the internet. But this wealth, while important, comes with new vulnerabilities. For while there has been a multiplication of channels - from blogs to local sites, from podcasts to newsletters - the traditional anchoring to criteria of editorial responsibility has disappeared. Verification of sources, editorial control, journalistic mediation have given way to immediate, often emotional, unfiltered communication.
