The right to criticism, not shitstorms: a tool for opposing dominant narratives

Insight by Dalia Ismail

The term shitstorm refers to the phenomenon where a large number of people express their dissent towards an individual or an organization through a storm of comments, criticism, insults, and mockery on social media. Shitstorms are one of the most violent dynamics of the digital age: in a few hours, a wave of attacks can overwhelm anyone, with devastating consequences.

The case of Giovanna Pedretti, a restaurateur from the province of Lodi, in northern Italy, has brought the debate on the impact of shitstorms back into focus. After responding to a review containing discriminatory comments against homosexuals and people with disabilities, she initially received widespread support. However, when doubts arose about the authenticity of the review – with speculation that it might have been created to advertise the restaurant – the narrative changed: praise turned into criticism and accusations of deceptive marketing strategies. The media pressure had tragic consequences: two days after her last interview in which she defended herself from the accusations, Pedretti was found dead in the Lambro River. This incident highlighted the cruel side of shitstorms, which, when targeting ordinary and vulnerable people without means to defend themselves, become an unjust and uncontrollable punishment.

However, reducing the entire phenomenon to mere collective hate would be a partial reading. In the case of Pedretti, we witnessed a destructive dynamic in itself, but when the target is a public figure with media power, the situation changes: the shitstorm can become a form of resistance against perceived unjust dominant narratives. This does not mean that every attack is justified, but it prompts reflection on the causes of these waves of indignation. The problem is not just the violence of the shitstorm, but the context that generates it: why are some voices amplified and others silenced? Why isn’t space given, in the same media outlets that publish articles that trigger waves of indignation, for a well-reasoned response? Most of the time, the right to respond with a completely opposite and well-argued perspective is not guaranteed.

This dynamic becomes evident when we examine specific cases in which the shitstorm is not just a personal attack, but a challenge to the role that certain public figures play in the media debate. Two recent examples, those of Vera Gheno and Cecilia Sala, show how collective anger can arise from the rejection of narratives perceived as biased, racist, and privileged.

Vera Gheno: the banality of intellectualism

Recently, linguist Vera Gheno and the newspaper Domani were hit by a wave of criticism under an Instagram post featuring an excerpt from one of her articles. Gheno denounced the insults she received, while Domani deleted numerous comments, calling them "pretexts," as the article was about linguistics, not geopolitics.

The article focuses on a seemingly linguistic analysis: whether it is more correct to say "soldate" (female soldiers) or "soldatesse" (female soldiers) when referring to women in the army, starting with the example of the Israeli army. However, addressing this topic without considering the context in which it fits is already a political stance. Discussing gender parity in the Israeli army as if it were just any job, without mentioning the active role these soldiers play in crimes against Palestinians, means normalizing their actions. Instead of analyzing the dehumanizing language used to describe Palestinians in Italian media – a much more tragic and urgent linguistic issue – the article dwells on a detail that distorts the priorities, reinforcing a debate on Palestine that excludes the Palestinian point of view.

Hannah Arendt spoke of the "banality of evil" to describe how seemingly ordinary individuals, mechanically carrying out their work, end up participating in systems of oppression. Gheno is certainly not an Eichmann, but her article represents a case of the banality of intellectualism: the privilege of being able to focus on formal issues while ignoring the broader picture and real injustice. The fact that Domani deleted numerous criticisms, arguing that the article is about linguistics and not geopolitics, shows how widespread this form of structural complicity is.

The reaction against Gheno was not a wave of hate, but a challenge to the privilege of those who can speak without facing the consequences of their discourse. If journalism were truly fair, if it gave space to those who honestly denounce the ongoing genocide in Palestine, this shitstorm would probably not have exploded. But the problem is that the public debate is already imbalanced: some narratives are defended, while others are systematically excluded.

Cecilia Sala: the double standard in the media

Last December, journalist Cecilia Sala was arrested in Iran and held in isolation for twenty-one days. The news sparked a wave of cross-party solidarity. However, while Sala was celebrated as a symbol of Western press freedom threatened by the Iranian regime,205 Palestinian journalists were killed by Israel, without the Western press giving them the same attention.

In contrast to all of this, many people chose not to participate in this media sanctification, not due to a lack of empathy, but due to rejection of a mechanism that values some journalists while ignoring others. Furthermore, the criticisms were also triggered by the fact that Sala played an active role in disinformation about the genocide in Palestine, contributing to the criminalization of Palestinian resistance and spreading various fake news, such as the claim that the bombing of Al-Ahli hospital in Gaza was caused by a Palestinian rocket, rather than an Israeli attack. Sala never corrected this, despite the ethical obligation to do so.

The wave of criticism against Cecilia Sala was not an irrational attack, but a reaction to the double standard in the media and the asymmetric narrative that has characterized the past months.

While Sala was justly celebrated as a victim by the Western media, hundreds of Palestinian journalists were killed without those same media outlets denouncing it with the same vigor. As highlighted by journalist Sara Manisera in an insight piece for Voice Over, this disparity in attention reflects a broader imbalance in the defense of freedom, where press freedom seems to matter only when it concerns those deemed "close" to Western values, while the voices of the “Other” remain invisible and expendable.

The shitstorm against her was a form of resistance to this mechanism, a way of saying that press freedom cannot be defended only when it supports a narrative favorable to our geopolitical interests, and that genocidal propaganda is a crime, not something to be overlooked or considered "freedom of expression" or "opinion".

If Western journalism had been more equitable, had it truly provided space and credibility to those who honestly denounce the genocide of Palestinians, perhaps no one would have felt the need to highlight Sala's responsibilities precisely while she was a victim. But the problem is that Western journalism, instead of adhering to the ethical principles of the profession, has systematically censored and discredited every alternative narrative to the Israeli one.

The right to criticism as a form of resistance to a partial narrative

Shitstorms are a complex phenomenon, driven by human beings. In the cases of Vera Gheno and Cecilia Sala, the shitstorm was not just a personal attack but a challenge to the way public discourse is constructed and imposed. The issue is not whether these individuals have the right to speak, but the fact that those offering opposing narratives are systematically excluded or discredited.

If criticisms had space in contexts that allow for a more nuanced exchange, perhaps they would not be perceived (or transformed) into a shitstorm. In the past, debates between intellectuals found room in newspapers and journals, allowing for rebuttals and counter-arguments that gave space to ideas. Think, for example, of the exchange between Pasolini and Moravia, which developed through articles and letters, or the confrontation betweenTiziano Terzani and Oriana Fallaci, which, despite the radical nature of their positions, maintained a dimension of exchange. Today, however, social media impose speed and simplification, resulting in even legitimate criticism appearing as a violent attack. This generates a polarized perception: those receiving criticism view it as lynching, while those expressing it often lack the space to argue it with due complexity.

The real solution is to ensure that everyone truly has the right to speak, but this becomes difficult in a context where media power is concentrated in the hands of a few editorial, economic, and industrial groups. In Italy, for example, the businessman Urbano Cairo controls RCS MediaGroup, one of the largest Italian media groups, which owns major newspapers like Il Corriere della Sera, La Gazzetta dello Sport, and others.

This type of concentration reduces the plurality of information, as those who control the media determine which voices are visible and which are marginalized.Il Corriere della Sera, despite being a historic outlet, has sometimes been accused of following editorial lines influenced by the economic and political interests of its owners. Another example is Mediaset, Silvio Berlusconi’s media empire, which controlled much of Italy’s television channels and played a pivotal role in the country's media and political landscape.The concentration of media power in a few hands limits the diversity of narratives, pushing alternative voices to seek space on social media, with all the limitations this brings in terms of superficiality and polarization.

In these specific cases, the real problem is not the shitstorm itself, but the system that makes it impossible to have an equitable confrontation. The solution is not to repress criticism or invoke neutrality that does not exist or depoliticized human solidarity. Because anger, before it explodes, is always the symptom of a broader injustice.