During the last episode Fourth Republic we can’t help but talk about the prosecutor Nicholas graterNaples’ chief prosecutor, known as a judicial figure, spearheaded the No Committee in a referendum that, however in recent days, ended up at the center of a myriad of controversies. The reason? A huge fake news story was revealed live on television in 2017 On Tuesdaywhen the robe was inscribed with a (non-existent) quote from Giovanni Falcone about his alleged (and incorrect) opposition to the separation of judges’ careers. An interview that never existed, Gratteri revealed, had been given to him by the media and he was careful not to verify it. Scivolone then “retaliated” in the following days, distorting Falcone’s other statements.
Correspondence from Fourth Republic tried to contact Gratteri to ask some questions from the broadcast. But the judge didn’t respond well at all. As soon as the journalist introduced himself, the prosecutor reacted with a sarcastic “say hello” and “hello Porro”. “You’re bothering me,” Gratteri insisted looked angry. “He spoke and I told him that I did not want to talk to him or his broadcasts. Because for years you have been making broadcasts that slander me” with “false data.”
Impossible. Gratteri “didn’t want to be bothered”, incidentally only by journalists who wanted to ask him uncomfortable questions, when in fact he was the frontman of the NO referendum campaign for justice reform. Who should journalists turn to? “You must always be true and loyal,” added Robe in front of the camera.
In the studio, Nicola Poro condemned the incident. And he underscored that perhaps apologizing for the mistake would be enough and it would end there. However, the newspaper’s director, Alessandro Sallusti, explained why this does not usually happen to judges. “Apologizing is not part of their logicthey judge and don’t want to be judged. The report you aired, in which he dodged questions and insulted the broadcast, shows you that the cloak is felt over the parties, they do not accept confrontation and they do not accept admission that they were wrong.
When this happens in public debate, it’s unpleasant, it’s unpleasant. But the problem is that this fact is borrowed from their work. When they make mistakes in the course of their profession, they don’t admit it but still make those mistakes, as Gratteri emphasized.”
