Milan – “I find it shocking that a mayor learns from a newspaper that he is under investigation, rather than being informed by the Prosecutor’s Office. This is an unacceptable practice.” With these words, today in the City Council, the Mayor of Milan, Giuseppe Sala, expressed his dismay over the recent events: his name being entered into the register of suspects for two alleged crimes — information he learned not through official channels, but from the press.
According to Sala, the Public Prosecutor justified the silence by stating that there was no legal obligation to notify the suspect, since no actions had been taken that would require formal communication. And yet — and this is where the issue arises — the mayor posed a simple yet stinging question: if there was truly no need to inform the suspect, how did the information reach a journalist? Who acted as the intermediary? And above all: to what end?
The names behind the investigation
The investigation bears the signature of three public prosecutors: Marina Petruzzella, Paolo Filippini, and Tiziana Siciliano. These are not unfamiliar names. On the contrary, their judicial careers are filled with cases that attracted media attention, often generating sensational expectations that, more often than not, were disappointed in court. A common trend that deserves to be scrutinized not only from the perspective of investigative effectiveness but also — and perhaps above all — from an ethical and systemic viewpoint.
The allegations against Sala are twofold:
1. False statements regarding his own or others’ personal qualifications, in reference to the appointment of former president of the Landscape Commission of the Municipality of Milan, Giuseppe Marinoni;
2. Complicity in undue inducement to give or promise benefits, linked to the so-called “Pirellino” project, designed by architect Stefano Boeri and promoted by businessman Manfredi Catella, president of the Coima group.
But this is not the central issue. The purpose of this reflection is not to establish Sala’s guilt or innocence. Rather, it is to shed light on a much broader and structural issue: the increasingly murky relationship between the judiciary and the media. An analysis that seeks to go well beyond the Milanese case, widening the lens to what happens in many — far too many — Prosecutor’s Offices throughout the country, in what we still, not without irony, call il Bel Paese.
An opaque and irresponsible system
Let’s call them what they are: not journalists, but often mere news hawkers. This is not a gratuitous provocation, but a statement about the degradation of Italian judicial journalism, which for years has bowed to the logic of engaging in backdoor briefings — the uncritical reproduction of narratives provided by sources within the judiciary, sometimes even confidential or covered by investigative secrecy.
In any public or private office, when a violation occurs, the responsible manager is held accountable. In the Prosecutor’s Offices, however, this principle seems reversed: responsibility evaporates into the fog of “no one knows who leaked it.”No internal investigations are launched, no action is taken.
But is it really acceptable that when a sealed document appears in the press, no one is ever held accountable? Is it believable that the cleaning lady photocopied the act? Or is it time to clearly assert a principle: the prosecutor in chargeis responsible for the confidentiality of the investigation. Full stop. No need for sociological analyses, just common sense and a culture of accountability.
Not “leaks,” but strategy
The real scandal in Italy is that we no longer witness leaks, but rather deliberate and strategic transmissions of documents or information by individuals aiming to influence public debate — or, more simply, to shift political balances. It’s not an accident; it’s a communication strategy.
And while this opaque system thrives, we witness the paradox of genuine investigative journalists — consider the cases of Report or Fanpage, among others — being subjected to searches, seizure orders, and even criminal proceedings. Meanwhile, those who faithfully publish the public prosecutor’s version of events, often obtained unlawfully, are never touched by such measures.
This is justice at two speeds, media with one voice. Because in this game of do ut des, I hand you the document and you publish it — and when you need a favor, I’ll help you out by authorizing a search against someone you ask me to target, or by speeding up a proceeding you want pushed forward. Numerous criminal cases involving journalists — cases unrelated to their professional activity — remain stalled on prosecutors’ desks simply because the accused is a friend of the magistrate. Let’s not pretend otherwise.
An unsettling triangulation between media, prosecutors, and politics
Giuseppe Sala’s remarks fit into a context that is anything but new. One need not go back to the era of Mani Pulite to grasp the destructive — and at times extortionate — power of the tacit alliance between certain magistrates and certain sectors of the press. Silvio Berlusconi was, for years, a prime target: a process of progressive delegitimization, carried out with the complicity of a media narrative that offered no leniency.
More recently, this same dynamic has affected figures on the left, perhaps previously less attuned to the problem. Consider the case of Matteo Renzi, subjected to a judicial and media campaign that engulfed his entire family, with timing and methods that suggest planning rather than coincidence. The result? A total flop. This raises a series of questions that are not only legal but also political, institutional, and moral: Is it normal for an investigation under seal to appear in a newspaper before being officially notified to the person involved? Is it acceptable that no one is ever held accountable for such leaks? Isn’t it time to introduce a specific criminal offense for breaches of investigative secrecy, with real penalties for those who pass such information to the press? Isn’t it time for clear ethical and disciplinary rules for magistrates who appear on talk shows or give interviews to the press, instead of speaking solely through their official acts?
A matter of fairness and legal civility
A magistrate, as a public official, is not above the law. Nor can they be. And if they earn a monthly salary of eight thousand euros, it’s reasonable to expect them to forego the spotlight, TV appearances, and flashy interviews. Their job is not communication, but the rigorous, discreet, and impartial application of the law. This is not about demonizing the judiciary, but about asking it to be worthy of its constitutional role. This is not about gagging the press, but about demanding that it be free, pluralistic, and responsible. A journalist must be free to investigate in all directions — not serve as the spokesperson or PR office of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Today it happened to Giuseppe Sala. Tomorrow it could happen to anyone. As the mayor himself said: “Today it’s me, tomorrow it’ll be someone else.” And it is precisely this arbitrary alternation that shows how no one is truly safe in a system where journalistic reporting supersedes procedural truth. Those who care about democracy cannot accept this state of affairs. The real reform of justice — the one we’ve been missing for thirty years — can wait no longer.
L.S.
Silere non possum