Last Friday, Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, lost his case for defamation against The Economist newspaper.
To say that The Economist is not a fan of Berlusconi is an understatement. The influential British newspaper has long taken a strong anti-Berlusconi stand, which at times borders on the personal. Before the 2001 Italian general elections it ran a cover with a picture of Berlusconi and the words: "Why Silvio Berlusconi is unfit to lead Italy". Inside the news weekly they compiled a dossier on Berlusconi detailing all his business interests and the conflict of interest they create, as well as details of legal proceedings against him. They strongly urged Italian voters not to vote for him. Berlsuconi won the election.
Four years later, another general election produced another front cover. This time Berlusconi's face with the words: "Basta, Berlusconi". Perhaps speaking to Italian voters in their own language was more convincing, in any case Berlusconi lost that election, only to be brought back to power in April 2008.
Berlusconi was not amused by what he read in The Economist. Not only is he used to a local press he largely controls and which consequently rarely has the opportunity to criticize him, but he does not take kindly to being criticized. He decided to take The Economist to court over their 2001 story and sued them for defamation.
Last Friday, a Milan court ruled that The Economist was fully within its rights and ordered Berlusconi to pay 25,000 euros by way of costs. Berlusconi has indicated that he will appeal the decision.
The two questions this case raises in my mind are: To what extent do journalists have a right to criticize political leaders, and to what extent do foreigners have a right to tell people how to vote?
Criticizing world leaders can be a risky business for journalists. In many countries, it is simply out of bounds. Even in the European Union where the law gives the media extensive freedom of expression, journalists do not have carte blanche to criticize whoever they wish. Partly it is because they answer to their owners. In France, for instance, much of the media is owned by close friends of President Sarkozy. When Sarkozy appeared to be drunk at a press conference after the G-8 summit, it went unmentioned in the French media. Once the footage was posted on youtube and watched by more than 10 million people in France, a couple of newspapers mentioned it in passing, but Sarkozy was largely spared the scathing media attention he would have received had he been the leader of say Britain.
Journalists can be reluctant to criticize world leaders for fear of not being perceived as politically neutral. Others feel that politicians as representatives of the countries they lead should be awarded respect as befits their station and hence keep their questions softly polite. Much of this is cultural. For example, the hard-nosed, combative interview style of the BBC's Jeremy Paxman sounds downright rude outside the Anglo-Saxon world. You would certainly not see the prime minister of Italy or the president of France interviewed in any where near so savage a fashion. And that's just in Europe. In Asia and the Middle East, it would be plain unthinkable to show such a lack of deference to a head of state.
Journalists have a duty to seek the truth and to reveal information that the public has a right to know. This, of course, should be done responsibly. If journalists only printed what politicians want the public to know, they might as well simply reprint press releases and conduct interviews like chat show hosts. Of course, there are places where the lack of press freedom means that journalists do just that, or more commonly, that they resort to writing obliquely letting readers read in between the lines. Quite often real criticism is left to the satirical press or to comedians and writers who have an arsenal of metaphors and fictional characters at their disposal to screen themselves from attack.
In the case of The Economist, there was no defamation. The information they printed on Berlusconi was in the public domain and was demonstrably true. All they did was collate it to make a case against Berlusconi and to express a strong opinion that he should not be elected.
Bu do foreigners have a right to tell voters how to vote? Do I, as a non-American, have a right to tell American citizens how to vote in November's elections? The answer clearly is that I am entitled to my opinion just as every other Tom, Dick and Harry is. As a columnist, that is what I do. But it is just that, an opinion.
That said, I get irritated to the point of being irate when I hear foreigners pontificate about Saudi society, particularly when I read Western columnists bulldozing through Saudi customs and rites. But I would not stop them doing it, nor sue them, nor burn effigies, nor do anything which lets my anger cross the threshold of my living room. Why? Because debate is healthy and criticism is a necessary evil. It's like a game of tennis: You get a better game if you can hit balls against a worthy opponent. If you never hear dissenting voices, you are in danger of lulling yourself into a false sense of security. You also condemn yourself to a state of atrophy.
