News Net Nebraska

Complete News World

“I would have broken the law” – Daily

“I would have broken the law” – Daily

service News abstraction Francesca Fagnani was understandably angry. Antonio Ricci's satirical news program focused on the jewelry worn by the presenter Monsters On several occasions, as Al Sanremo Festival. The journalist's response was immediate and angering, as she held the program responsible for voluntarily painting a negative image of her, allowing untrue things to be assumed about her.

Report by Striscia la Notizia

Antonio Ricci's satirical news program was concentrated in one programme Report on the jewelry presented by Francesca Fagnani On multiple occasions. the reason? They all belong to the same brand: “A necklace with a shiny chain and a single gemstone flower, with a pendant with four rows of diamonds. Two eye-catching rings with the same floral motifs cannot go unnoticed. Jewelry for The total value is about 110 thousand euros“.

An in-depth study whose meaning, if not its meaning, is difficult to understand Perhaps he assumed a relationship with this brand. The latter's creations were also displayed in Sanremo Festival 2023as stated in a press release.

“Ethically, would it be right to display designer jewelry?” Here's what you ask News abstractionwhich in effect makes allegations about the journalist, who is defined as “Influential journalist” on the program's social media networks. Here the concerned person responded, in a clear and harsh tone.

Reply Francesca Fagnani

Franceca Fagnani's response was not long in coming. She came through Dagospia He aims to emphasize the clear intent behind the report: “The images you broadcast, which concern me, lead the public to believe that Maybe you got some benefits From wearing some items on my TV show.

See also  Cristiano Malgoglio, ready for love? Revelation comes alive

What the service does, in a not-so-subtle way, is a powerful accusation. As much as we try to make the tone provocative and joking (and unsuccessful), when talking for example about an influential journalist, we are actually suggesting what Vagnani then explains: “It would mean that You have systematically violated professional lawThe rules that governed my relationship with opinion and above all betrayed the relationship with the public.”

The journalist describes this representation as false and harmful. Something that offends her deeply. So what is the explanation behind all this? something Strips It is not included in their service.

Worn and exposed products are supplied, without any guaranteed acknowledgment of the producers It is now available for free From time to time for interview. It is a free process that does not generate advantages or benefits “neither for myself nor for others.” The only benefit comes from not having to buy accessories to complete the outfit.

“It is clear that what was broadcast exposes me to negative judgment from the public, which has been misled by your reconstruction into judging me and my behavior negatively.”