Round Table - Michele Zanzucchi's speech

Round Table: dialogue on brotherhood in various cultural spheres

Michele Zanzucchi

Editor of the fortnightly magazine Città Nuova

My talk comes from the reflection and work carried out by NetOne during these four years - a very short span of time, I should say - and it is the result of the "coordination between us communicators".

It is no easy task to speak of universal brotherhood in the world of media, where antagonism prevails. Whether we like it or not, we media people have to deal with enemies; they may be present both within our circles (the manager for example) and also outside them (Osama or Saddam, for example). Unfortunately, these enemies are there in front of us, even if we do all we can not to see them and not to create them. The media system - a system, that according to well know theories is based precisely on the amplification of contrasts and conflicts - seems to be purposely made to instigate us against someone.

So the professional communicator, who wants to work seriously for universal brotherhood, has a lot to risk. Technology and sophisticated communication techniques are continuously increasing the extraordinary possibility of bringing society closer together, or, on the contrary, creating divisions and separations. Bridges and gaps depend also on us.

An example: recently, Sunta Izzicupo, an italian-american from Los Angeles, who was the deputy manageress of the powerful CBS station, told me how television contributed in a very decisive manner to the events following 11^th September, helping to prevent an implosion within the entire American territory. She related that the attention of TV viewers was concentrated on long forgotten values like solidarity, brotherhood and reciprocal help, rather than on fear, hatred and revenge. There were certain debatable aspects in what she related, but there was also a certain amount of truth.

Unfortunately, in media professions there is also the tendency of "creating" an enemy ad hoc that gives one the opportunity of projecting on the outside the bad feelings and division one may feel inside. Therefore great attention is needed when one is actually contributing to media projects. It is here that brotherhood can live or die, due to influences very often doomed by the media product itself. With regards to this, communication among communicators is of utmost importance. Brotherhood has to be exercised by those who work in the field of communication. And this means that as brothers they should communicate their frustrations and also their stimuli and their projects. It means that they should help one another to discover the qualities and the potential that each one possesses and that are frequently discarded. Very often better work is the result. And this is not "being good". Because "being good" does not risk anything, it is living quietly, it is tackling problems and contrasts superficially. A goody is one who tends to demonstrate compassion about things he is not really sensitive about.

There seems to be three consequences that arise. The first one stems from the fact that in the act of communication not just two are involved (the one who talks and the one who listens, the one who gives the news and the other who receives them, the one who interviews and the one who is being interviewed), but there is always a third one. At times it may be one of the protagonists of communication; it may be the one helping out in an interview (the reader or the viewer), but it may also be our friends who listen to our transmission on the radio, or even a group of people mentioned in a news programme. Communication is never solely two-way. And very often this third element, more than any other, appreciates the behaviour of the media operator who tries to overcome divisions and to love the enemy. So it is of utmost importance to learn to speak to our listeners, explaining to them very clearly and truthfully the situations being dealt with, giving the bright and the dark side of each fact, without concealing any hope that may exist.

The second consequence deals with forgiveness, which is necessary both for our personal and social life and also essential in our media sphere. It is logical that no one asks for it by law; yet those who practise it internally or externally, manage very often to have a certain lucidity and shrewdness that they would otherwise lack. Don't we say that anger makes one go blind?

The third consequence is about memory, or better still about the purification of personal memory and even the historical memory. This means that one is ready to be merciful where mistakes of others are concerned (and as Simone Weil reminds us - it also means being merciful towards our own mistakes). It means that we look for what is good to present a solution and to start afresh from the good things we manage to achieve together. Through this, the communicator is not burdened with resentment that paralyses him or induces him to vengeance and to sterile contrasts. The communicator will also have no regrets about the irreparable mistakes committed, while confidence in future possibilities becomes the driving energy that leads to true communication for a united world.