Italy's Grillo Slams Mainstream Media "Manifest Manipulation Of Reality"

Tyler Durden's picture

"Fake news" has officially crossed the pond and once again it the mainstream media that is producing more of it (while blaming the alternative media). Beppe Grillo, founder of Italy's Five Star anti-euro movement lashed out at the country's journalists for "manufacturing false news," accusing them of fabricating stories to keep the Five Stars down.

"Newspapers and television news programmes are the biggest manufacturers of false news in the country, with the aim of ensuring those who have power keep it," he said on his blog on Tuesday.

As Local.It reports, he called for "a popular jury to determine the veracity of the news published," and said in cases of fake news "the editor must, head bowed, make a public apology and publish the correct version at the start of the program or on the paper's front page".

 ...the politicians are now demanding stronger measures against bloggers...


[BUT], have never urged punishment for those who commit more serious crimes, lying in absolute bad faith, abusing the credibility of institutions. That lie can not be punished. It is not in the interest of mainstream politicians.  


All major newspapers should be closed for manifest manipulation of reality, or obliged to go out with a sticker that certifies the lack of credibility.

The media world was - of course - enraged...

The news director of the private TG La7 channel, Enrico Mentana, said he would sue the comedian, while journalists' union FNSI slammed the "lynching of all journalists".


What Grillo is proposing "is called Fascism, and those who play it down are accomplices," PD senator Stefano Esposito said.

Marco Travaglio, editor of the far-left Il Fatto Quotidiano daily, agreed with Grillo but said the popular jury idea would never work.

"The biggest lies are those spread by the television and newspapers, but the solution he is proposing is naive," he said.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stan Smith's picture

The "Funny Man" might be on to something.    I have a feeling the world is finally waking up to what's going on.  

HedgeJunkie's picture

I favor editorial heads rolling...literallly.

Haus-Targaryen's picture

Why do we need "peoples courts"

How about just simple freedom of speech and let people sort it out themselves? 

Troy Ounce's picture


But it is the reality of Gyorgy Schwartz!

beemasters's picture

The pope, next door, is nervous. Is this the beginning of the end of Vatican? Stay tuned to the next episode of "Faking It" where the Pope will equate listening to Grillo to drinking urine or risk his capital of pedophilia disappear like the innocence of their child victims.

Captain Chlamydia's picture

You sir, are a beacon of Light in Dark times. 

Thanks HT. Government is a totalitarian fascist institution. Libertarian is the Word. 

Ghordius's picture

this is the third attempt at an answer to your question

the answer is expectations. which differ, a cultural thing

europeans, for example, expect the state to be in media too, they expect a state media, too. you can exchange that "expect" with "are used to", of course

state media, particularly state TV... ought to be more balanced then private media. another expectation

your values go in the direction of "Caveat Emptor", in this case, don't they?

well, here europeans tend to differ with you

example: this is highly visible on the issues around the proper labeling of products, whereas europeans tend to expect authorities to enforce labeling of potential hazards and full content disclosure, while in the US there is even more labeling, but it's more driven by the pre-emption of legal suits, a completely different approach with completely different results on the shelves (with, as I understand, local differences, too, in the US. up to the point that every US state has different regulations even on the size of beer cans)

as a reminder, Beppe Grillo, in this Italian context, is railing against two sets of media: the state's and the private. with the state media having, by law, to give coverage and air-time to all political forces, including Grillo's 5Star movement

nah, still a bad attempt. it's not easy, to cross those bridges between different cultures. whatever you leave out, might be missing, but too much becomes too much

Haus-Targaryen's picture

I just don't understand the idea (although I admit you are correct - most think the way you describe) as to why "Europeans" trust their government.  Out of all the various peoples on the planet, Europeans -- especially the Germans have been habitually thrown under the bus by one government after another going back CENTURIES.  You would think after WWII when the German government killed off some 30% of their own population the Germans would cease trusting said institution and seek to limit its power. 

Instead the opposite is true.  Germans, and "Europeans" as a whole don't want to (and I'm speaking in generalities here) limit their government but rather increase its power and instrusion into their lives.  

Then the great equalizer in European history previously (when their leaders became too tyrannical they'd get their heads chopped off by a well armed population) has been removed from the population in general, and the average idiot doesn't want the general public to own weapons.  

I then pose them the question "Why did Hitler remove the Jews' ability to own weapons before he started rounding them up" to which its like a deer in the headlights for a good couple seconds, and thereafter "Well times have changed and today is more dangerous than it was back then" some other equally asinine talking point. 

Um what in the actual fuck?  "More dangerous" than 6 million people getting killed? 

Ghordius's picture

first, because there is little libertarianism in the sense of "we could get rid of government", in Europe

so europeans focus on what kind of gov they want to have, and leave that "gov, do we need that" question mostly out

Haus-Targaryen's picture

You're confusing anarchism (lack of government which no sane person wants) and liberalism, which is the limitation of government. 


Ghordius's picture

I possibly misunderstood the way you posed the question, yes

example, Germany, hottest current issue: should the "Verfassungsschutz" (read: kind of FBI) be a federated state thing or should it become national/federal?

Bavaria's CSU is leading the federated state monopoly on police camp, the CDU is leading the "let's go federal, because of terrorism" camp

your preference?

Oldwood's picture

What communist understood was that the way you RULE is by converting and eliminating until all you have left are true believers. Those most opposed to the "Statist" world left long ago for places like America. Those who remained were likely much more tolerant of exactly what you now have, not to mention the millions disposed of who now offer no opposition.

Any successful "society" neessarily needs some uniformity of thought and values to survive, and Europe has largely done that. The question is, can they maintain that with their immigrant influx?

Occident Mortal's picture

There is the limitation of powers and there is the separation of powers.

For example the judicial system can offer a powerful counterweight to a government.

In the U.K. we have legislative law and also common law.

The government creates legislative laws and the judiciary creates common law.

It is possible to create laws without a government, we already do it.

But government is a whatever it wants to be. It is more than a legislator. It is also a tax collector and a service provider.

It's when the government becomes and overzealous service provider that people often dislike it.

Ghordius's picture

+1, fully agree

though I see the Common Law approach as one of the reasons why the UK does not fit the rest of the EU a priori. because it shifts the citizen's focus from the legislative to the judiciary

it generates a completely different citizen, imho

Ghordius's picture

second, weapons

the european experience of revolts, riots and revolutions is not that victory belongs to those who were better armed, but to those that were better organized

further, external forces (and allies vs allies of enemies) are even more important, in that experience

two examples:

the French had lots of "minutemen" in 1871. they were irrelevant, when facing the German allied troops on their way to Paris, because those German troops were already using the early "combined arms" tactics

winning or losing the early WWI or the early WWII was all about... if the US would enter the fray or not. meaning... alliances matter more then anything else. I could make the same case for the CSA, which failed at attracting an external supporter. or Washington's Continental Army, which had French support

detached.amusement's picture

kinda fucks your organizing calculus when you have no while organization is important, the potential has to exist in the first place.  but then again, this isnt the first time we've seen you put the cart before the horse.

Ghordius's picture

third, that "Instead the opposite is true.  Germans, and "Europeans" as a whole don't want to (and I'm speaking in generalities here) limit their government but rather increase its power and instrusion into their lives."

I'd argue here that you don't see properly our efforts at limiting gov

here, the power of gov is national. it's French gov, Italian gov, German gov, etc.

the armed forces are national, the police is national, the intelligence services are national

my impression is that we do a better job then most on keeping those govs off the backs of the citizens. with a better privacy for citizens, for starters

I could argue that even the EU and EUR projects are limiting factors on national govs

Marine Le Pen, for example, wants more power for the French gov

Victor Orban, another example, wants more power for the Hungarian gov

the Brexiters want to return power to the British gov

Bollockinell's picture

"Marine Le Pen, for example, wants more power for the French gov

Victor Orban, another example, wants more power for the Hungarian gov

the Brexiters want to return power to the British gov"

Are you not confusing "power for the gov" with "want to take back power from a bunch of unelected outsiders sitting in an ivory palace in Brussels"?

Ghordius's picture

it is nevertheless more power to the national govs, isn't it? which aren't exactly lacking of power versus the citizens, are they?

yes, the EU is a set of norms, laws, etc. Common norms

how you get those laws/norms?

first, the EU Council has to give a green light to the draft

who is this council? national ministers. like Victor Orban as PM of Hungary

second, who has to confirm or reject those laws/norms?

the elected EU Parliament. with MEPs like Marine Le Pen or Nigel Farage

so no, that "unelected outsiders in an ivory tower" is still simply wrong

neither Victor Orban nor Nigel Farage nor Marine Le Pen are such

and they all voted on having the current EU commission Juncker or not, and could throw Juncker out anytime, the same way that the Hungarian parliament could oust Orban anytime

Ghordius's picture

fourth, trust in government

a common misconception among many ZHrs is that europeans trust their govs

if you look at the EU's "eurobarometer", particularly the last versions, 83 and 84, you find this:

"Overall, 36% of Europeans trust the European Union, slightly more than the proportion who trust their national parliament (32%) and their national government (31%). Trust in these institutions has improved since spring 2016, with increases of three percentage points for the European Union, and four percentage points for both national parliament and national government."

again, differently: we do not trust gov, neither our national govs and parliaments nor the EU's:

"A majority of Europeans distrust the national parliament (62% “tend not to trust”, -3 percentage points since spring 2016) and the national government (64%, -4). They also “tend not to trust” the European Union but with a lower score (54%, -1)."

I posit here that trust in gov is higher, in the US, and distrust is lower

two hoots's picture

We all have a tendency to imagine the kind of government that we, "individually" would want.   We imagine plugging "ourselves" into this imagined system and and it works, for us.  But "we" are all different (you know the list and list)  and each imagines a different gov that would work for their ways.  I think we do this type of thinking with lots of things (if it works for me it should work for you).  So what does that mean?  I don't know but suspect it means we will always have differences and never entirely get along but we should try. 

Thanks to all for the thoughtul, grownup discussion.

Oldwood's picture

Did slaves trust their owners? Trust is irrelevant if you have no power to oppose it. The EU is legislating even the smallest factors in your lives and you have no means to resist far as I can tell. And organization or not, without weapons to offer opposition, you can only CLAIM liberty and never PROVE it. Or is your plan to starve leadership into submission? That worked great for the Ukranians under soviet control. I is extremely difficult to walk back incremental power accumulation...incrementally.

GCT's picture

Ghordius Happy New Year.

I was going to post those stats and get onto you about EU citizens trusting their government.  You beat me to the punch. 

Actually Americans trust car sales people more then they do their government. 

detached.amusement's picture

is that a damned lie, or just (poor) statistics?

fact of the matter is, the locals have more experience with the national level devil as opposed to the pie in the sky devil that hasnt but put the tip in yet.

TheReplacement's picture

It is a good thing you do not trust your governments because they are not yours.  They are controlled by bankers and certain intellingence agencies. 

Your point above about the Germans debating on having a federal versus state form of FBI is interesting.  Who was it that caused the problem they are trying to solve?  It was not the German people but the federal government who invited the terrorists.  Sounds like the old create a crisis and provide a solution that makes the state (federal or state) more powerful scheme to me.

You Euros have the same problem most here in the states have, the illusion/delusion of freedom and democracy.

Ahmeexnal's picture

"I just don't understand the idea (although I admit you are correct - most think the way you describe) as to why "Europeans" trust their government."

The word you are looking for is SERFDOM. They have always been, they will always be.  Serfs. Slaves. Well dressed paupers. Sheep.

OverTheHedge's picture

My thinking on this is to force the media to devote the same amount of airtime / column inches to the retraction as they did to the fake story. This would help for the libel / slander of individuals, but I don't know how to fix the enforced .gov propaganda, as a court would have to agree that it was fake, and that won't happen. Perhaps more extreme measures? This will only get fixed if the politicians have an incentive to fix it, and right now they are desperate to keep the current system running, come what may.

Nomad Trader's picture

Traders have known that MSM is fake news for decades. I'm so happy to see the rest of society is now figuring it out too.

Oldwood's picture

The purpose of communication is to motivate ideas or actions in others. Propaganda is simply a less discrete communication intended to motivate.

ALL communication is propaganda ultimately, or at least we should always look at it that way.

Zero Point's picture

Oh great. "Peoples courts" to decide "truth" eh? One step closer to Idiocracy.

HRH Feant's picture
HRH Feant (not verified) Jan 5, 2017 3:10 AM

Didn't they used to call crap news yellow journalism? Meh. Hard to get worked up over more BS. The newsfeeds are full of it these days.

scoutshonor's picture

Captain Hornigold called--he wants his look back.

Escapeclaws's picture

I wonder if the Italians have their own Pizzagate.

Sandmann's picture

Italy has experienced every form of corruption the US thinks is novel and unique

Ghordius's picture

yes, and a few more

though interestingly, Italy never experienced one form of electoral corruption that is very widespread in the US: politically motivated re-districting, aka "Gerrymandering"

nor one that was widespread in the UK, once: "rotten boroughs"

meanwhile, Italians practically re-invented "machine politics", particularly in the local elections with very complex lists and plenty of choices. those were often made so that you could "fingerprint" the vote, and so sell it, aka "bloc voting"

nightwish's picture

but you see, they've made nice convenient boxes to tidy up with a big labels on them like 'alt-R' and 'conspiracy theorist' on them.

you get tossed in these boxes publicly and have the uneviable task of climbing yourself out. 

most truth tellers these days dwell in these boxes and soon enough they'll have bars on them

NuYawkFrankie's picture

Sinore Grillo - SALUTE!

Thank your lucky stars - all 5 of them! - that you don't have to deal with the USSA MSM... or has the suffocating stench of the NY Times/Wash Post "Duopoly Of Deceit' already wafted over to Bella Italia?

croecko's picture

Just as during the final decades of the Soviet Union, our leaders, while aware that the system is not working, are nonetheless unable to imagine an alternative and so are reduced to pretending that it is and convincing (or coercing) citizens to do likewise. Read the following article published December 31st, 2016:

Debugas's picture

to lie is a sin

any news media that spreads lies should be closed

mog's picture

any news media that spreads lies should be closed

That would leave Britain with nothing but Russia today and the internet.
But, as God made little green apples - they would at least get some accurate information instead of lies and garbage!!1

Sandmann's picture

Noone reads newspapers in Italy. They are subsidised by the Government. 

mog's picture

Good for you Beppe.
But at least the Italians are waking up.
Here in Britain the British are brain dead.
There is a news black out against Paul Nuttal and UKIP just as there was against Nigel Farage before he stepped down from the leadership.
In 2015 87% of people voted for a one party, split into 3 to con them.
The lib lab con.
11,000,000 who thought themselves so much better than the rest of us - went in arrogance and actually voted for a known war criminal and open habitual liar - in the form of David Cameron - rather than the fantastic Nigel Farage.
Cameron, a double war criminal - Iraq and Libya - and a triple war criminal - Syria - had he not been stoppped in the House of Commons.
Now we have his successor - Theresa May - open door to immigrants pouring in and throwing away £355,000,000 to the EU every week as she cheats the majority who voted to leave
Stuffed up BREXIT intentionally.
Introducing Sharia and polygamy openly for muslims without parliamentary approval in violation of our bigamy laws.
Set up 90 sharia courts without parliamentary approval within our justice system
And do you know - going on 50% of stupid Brits would vote for her tomorrow.
Why because the rabid neo liberal bag passes herself off as a 'conservative'.
Pass a sick bag.
This country is nuts - it certainly hasn't got the gumption of Italians and the French, I will tell you that.
They suck up the MSM lies and vote for more betrayal.

Escapedgoat's picture

Is Teresa May's Husband a major Share holder in G4S ?


TeaClipper's picture

As a fellow Brit I agree with your sentiment, but have not quite yet given up on all my fellow Brits, after all when it counted they got of their asses and voted for Brexit. The real test though will come if/when they try and steal Brexit from us. I still have this feeling i may yet have to fight to be free of the EU, but if so it will be the most worthwhile fight of my life.

Ghordius's picture

interestingly, though... UKIP & the EU

your countryman is railing against the British news blackout on UKIP's new leader

relate it to the fact that UKIP got four million votes and only two seats in Westminster

what did the EU... about UKIP? it practically gave you Britons UKIP

in the EU parliament, UKIP could get seats. why? different electoral system

no EU... no such things like UKIP, in the UK? no... dissenting voices anymore?

TeaClipper's picture

After the last years events i an not sure main stream politics will ever be the same again. I sail the UKIP ship as first and foremost i want my country out of the EU, if after that mission is complete then I will be more than happy to move on to other challenges. I suspect though the fight against Globalism has a way to go yet. Can UKUP morph from a one trick pony, to take on the globalist challenge? All i can say is given how hard it is for any new party to break the stranglehold on British politics they are the current best hope,  if not then i look for another ship to sail on for a while. Like i said earlier nothing will ve the same again for any of the established parties, on that much i think we can all agree. As for proportional representation, that is a real hard sell in the UK. We look at Italy that achieves very little very slowly under that system and balk at the prospect.


TeaClipper's picture

Apologies for the wall of words, but my phone and this website dont think paragraph spaces are a good idea

Escapedgoat's picture

The Private Media cannot publish against THEIR OWN INTERESTS, NEVER.

Now then, when they have a banner on the top saying: " We don't have to tell the truth you Morons, as OUR BOSS IS GOING TO LOSE BIG TIME"

Then, they can publish ANYTHING  they want.

Spiro The Greek's picture

The way to defeat big media is simple...dont read them, give all your views, clicks, likes and shares to small alternative media like this one.

In time we will destroy them all.