Rome, 14 Aug. (LaPresse) – “During the lengthy hearing before the RAI Ethics Committee, Dr Ranucci provided precise and detailed answers to all the questions put to him, offering factual evidence that dispelled any possible doubts regarding unfounded and specious political and journalistic interpretations of the way in which investigations have been conducted and the programme has been run in recent years.” This is stated in a press release issued by the journalist’s lawyer, Roberto De Vita. “As in previous audits which concluded by confirming the correctness of *Report*’s work, Ranucci has always defended the integrity of the editorial team’s journalists, safeguarding their autonomy and independence, well aware of how investigative journalism is constantly exposed to criticism and attacks,” the statement continues. Such as what is happening now, where the (inconvenient) victim of a serious attack (which becomes a pretext) is blamed for damage to the programme’s reputation and politicians are calling for his replacement – a moral paradox with serious consequences for democracy.”
Ranucci attack: journalist’s lawyer says, “He is the victim, yet he is being blamed for damaging the organisation’s reputation”
Rome, 14 Aug. (LaPresse) – “During the lengthy hearing before the RAI Ethics Committee, Dr Ranucci provided precise and detailed answers to all the questions put to him, offering factual evidence that dispelled any possible doubts regarding unfounded and specious political and journalistic interpretations of the way in which investigations have been conducted and the programme has been run in recent years.” This is stated in a press release issued by the journalist’s lawyer, Roberto De Vita. “As in previous audits which concluded by confirming the correctness of *Report*’s work, Ranucci has always defended the integrity of the editorial team’s journalists, safeguarding their autonomy and independence, well aware of how investigative journalism is constantly exposed to criticism and attacks,” the statement continues. Such as what is happening now, where the (inconvenient) victim of a serious attack (which becomes a pretext) is blamed for damage to the programme’s reputation and politicians are calling for his replacement – a moral paradox with serious consequences for democracy.”