A new kind of journalism has been around for some time. I would call it “revival” and this is how it works. You take a character who in the distant past was notorious and go and interview him. Not just an interview but one like: tell me your whole life. It began on television, in the afternoon magazines, to an audience that was probably older and therefore lived with the interviewee. And it made headlines from there. Each day one, two or sometimes three pages are devoted to this exceptional version of The Way We Were. We give him practically the same space that would be available for an interview with the President of the United States or the Pope.
This has its advantages, of course, but also some limitations. Meanwhile, in the race to pick up characters from the past, along with some unquestionably stars who’ve already made history, it also ends up being minor characters, supporting actors, who are suddenly upgraded in exchange for some confident, better if hot. In fact, each time some kind of belated gossip is created, with memories of love and cuckolding that no one can deny now.
How entertainment works, it is clear. But the real danger, in my opinion, is the effect of nostalgia. Passing on the belief that the past was a golden age while the present, as can be seen on the facing pages, is a series of unsolved problems and the future is only spoken of in dire terms, as in the controversy overartificial intelligence. This vision of the passage of time as if we are heading towards the end of the world when everything was so beautiful before is the last thing we need. It’s like walking with your head tilted back. Not only do you not seize the opportunities that present themselves, but you risk stumbling at the first hurdle. I wonder if it is inappropriate to give the same space every day to a scientist, innovator, or young person. People who are trying to change the world and make it better.
