Like a great and immortal political leader, of an almost oriental rite (such as Iosif Stalin and Mao Tse -Tung), the death of Pippo Baudo has aroused a great clamor – a little more than the departure of Piero Angela, a little less than the disappearance of Alberto Sordi. By challenging the laws of common sense in terms of human biology – the father of state TV went for the nineties – at the news of his death, a great and transversal reaction of surprise was raised. The conservatives and moderate, regretting what was and remarking how good taste, measure and professionalism it was lost and never was there, while the progressives and the most radical – who perhaps misunderstood him when ours was in vogue and dictated law with unified networks – make him the honor of weapons, recognizing that yes, despite everything, he represented the history of Italian TV. And it is undeniably true.

Baudo between the two eras of TV. From the monopoly to the Duopolio

Baudo was the hero of the two poles, understood as the poles of the Italian radio and television system – Rai and Mediaset – from the beginning in the 1960s, up to the early 2000s. He was certainly born and raised in Mother Rai, but was one of the Diaspora of the Rai Divi who, within two decades, from the 70s to the end of the 80s, decided to go in the arms of Mediaset. When Silvio Berlusconi began a strong purchasing campaign that took away from Rai at first Mike Bongiorno (underpaid in Rai and, albeit filled with money from the knight of Arcore, the daredevil to decide to land in Telemilano, derived from a cable TV for almost residential use for the Milan 2), Raimondo Vianello and Sandra Mondaini (including Sbirulino) in the early years) 80s, to then continue with Corrado, Raffaella Carrà and, in fact, Baudo at the end of the 80s always. Today it is the standard for TV Divi to go from one broadcaster to another, but at the time, in the era of the Rai monopoly – which was ensured by the sentences of the Constitutional Court at least for all the 1960s and until the early 1980s – to move on to the TV of the “Berlusca” was high betrayal not only against the state TV, but also towards that same political class and those parties of the first Republic that protected and tried to continue the monopoly Rai with all the means. Suffering the resourcefulness of Silvio Berlusconi, considered an enemy of the people and Parvenu. But Baudo, who was Rai and Rai was after all Baudo, did not resist Mediaset even for a television season. He signed in 1987 and came out of it, in the face of a three -year contract the following year. It can be said that he was one of the few to put us back in this adventure, having to pay a penalty to Berlusconi to get out of that contract that took the form of a four -storey building owned by Baudo himself who ceded to the Knight. But, although not even one year in Mediaset, his abandonment in Rai created a great national clamor. In truth, everything that was done Baudo had a national dimension, where he certainly embodied the “national -population”, however intended as the reification of that editorial line that – since the time of the Rai monopoly and still during the duopoly with Mediaset – was dropped from above against the public who assisted from below. Here, Baudo was the officiant of a rich live mass, propagated by state TV throughout the national territory. A television that had other means compared to today, as well as, quite other purposes that were not only entertained the public and make useful. The aim was to “educate” and “indoctrinate” the Italians. And Pippo Baudo was one of the main faces of these state educators. In such asfactic radio and television market, it was clear that everything Baudo proposed was a discovery. Because at the time, in the absence of social media, youtube, platforms and with enormously higher production costs of today, everything that was promoted by state TV had large chances of becoming a trend. Baudo was nothing more than the media emanation of the editorial choices of the various Ettore Bernabei, Biagio Agnes and so on. It was a Rai that had to guarantee the status quo and television pluralism, which actually coincided with the practice of subdivision of the parties.

Baudo and politics: a love never blossomed. Or, perhaps, a perfect love

It would be naive to say that Pippo Baudo was far from politics. Anyone who has worked and works in Rai is clearly part of a group of power that has its branches in the various political parties. Last but not least Baudo, who has never hidden his sympathies for Christian democracy. Not surprisingly, the only temptations of a direct commitment to politics came from what remained – after the tsunami of the season of clean hands – of the old DC. He baptized in 2001 European Democracy, the political creature of Sergio D’Antoni, former secretary general of the CISL (today president of Coni Sicilia) and twice refused the candidacy for the center -left to President of the Sicily Region. The first time in 2005 and in his place was then chosen Rita Borsellino, the second time in 2012, with the candidacy then, after the refusal of Baudo, of Rosario Crocetta. Unlike many of his colleagues – remaining in the bed of TV presenters – Baudo had a lot of measure in his relationship with the politics and refusal of the two candidates was a great example. Also because, at the time of the cultural monopoly of state TV, the aura of Divo TV was much more prestigious than any political charge. Above all, above all, of the transversality that this role guaranteed, making sure that the image of the “good presenter” came to all Italians, regardless of the political ideas of each. And candidate would have liked to say that neutrality. Thinking about it, Baudo’s relationship with politics was perhaps perfect precisely by reason of his double refusal to play the role of the candidate of a political part with respect to the others.

Why can there no longer be a new baudo?

Today a Pippo Baudo would no longer be possible. Above all, because television no longer holds the monopoly of the national-popular imagination. This is only one of the means by which content are administered and the tastes of the public are shaped. Generalist TV is going towards an inexorable sunset for the benefit of hyper-specific and targetized and other media broadcasters, much more immediate and in line with the needs of an audience that is now no longer considered in its entirety, but in the individual needs of each of its components. Baudo was the state TV that no longer exists today because the characteristics that ensured an unassailable income position compared to the other media have failed. And these characteristics were: the de facto monopoly of television production – despite Berlusconi’s TV, which at least throughout the parable of our presenter, was always on the run of Rai and certainly had fewer budgets available; An editorial line dictated by political, cultural and social propaganda needs decided by the government parties by virtue of an iron and precise subdivision – this condition is still present today, but enjoys less centrality because the same TV has lost its dominant position with respect to the mass media panorama and the publishing choices, often, are derived from the trends of other mass media such as social networks and streaming platforms; The possibility of turning to an active and transversal audience compared to all age groups and above all young and “highly gone” – today, paraphrasing an expression coined by Dagospia, the general of the generalist TV is mostly represented by “teleming”, that is, elderly people passive in front of the screen that have difficulties even if only to change channel. And the mantra “said the TV” is no longer worth. ” If anything, today we would say “I saw it on Instagram/Tiktok”. Here, Baudo could not have been a follower of his followers. He was the “good presenter” who needed to have a stage and an audience, tendentially passive and to be entertained.