Restaurant, Trattoria, Osteria

In Italy there are different types of eating establishments—namely, restaurants, trattorias, and osterias.  The differences today don’t mean as much as in the past, as many trattorias and even restaurants today call themselves osterias, and vice versa.  And the evolution continues with the advent of agritourism and the Slow Food Movement.

The osteria, or inn, was developed between the First and Second World Wars.  In these taverns shelter was needed, a few tables, lots of wine, and very little food.  Until the 1960s, only a few hot dishes were offered, such as a pot of boiled tripe or minestrone.  Over time, they served simple meals.  Usually there was no menu and the offerings changed daily, according to the local market.  Over time, two or three courses might be offered at a fixed price, including wine.

Trattorias evolved between the 60s and 80s and offered more options than osterias.  Traditionally, they were family-owned, casual, and rustic places that served fresh, unassuming, and conventional local food at reasonable prices.  Restaurants, on the other hand, traditionally offer complete meals or à la carte dishes presented on a printed menu with fixed prices.  Some have a host or hostess, a sommelier and a professional kitchen staff, although not all are the same.

As the distinction between these types of restaurants have blurred, according to the guide, Osterie d’Italia 2019, at least four different types of “trattorias” have emerged: traditional, modern, agritourism, and traditional restaurant.  In the traditional trattoria, the focus is on the raw ingredients whose origin is strictly local.  The dishes are handed down from generation to generation.  The tables are managed in an informal and simple way, in many cases by family members divided between the kitchen and tables.  The modern trattoria might have minimalist furniture and it might have a more updated look without checkered tablecloths and plates or peasant tools on the walls.  But more importantly, its dishes tend to rethink traditional dishes with a modern touch and an unusual presentation.  These places are often run by young people, most often long-time friends with a passion for wine, who are trying to reshape history in a contemporary way.

Traditional restaurants usually are more elegant with more service formalities.  In general, their dishes reflect tradition while attempting to keep in step with the times.  The agritourism sector is a model on the rise.  The idea here is to serve dishes prepared with vegetables cultivated, cheeses produced, and meat raised just a few meters from one’s table.  The cuisine is more or less rigorously linked to tradition.  On the table, risotto, lasagna, soup, baked goose or roast kid might arrive, as well as a rich selection of cold cuts and cheeses to try.

According to the Osteria guide, the best establishments share the same qualities including:  a welcome and convivial environment; fair value for money; use of local products whenever possible; and knowledge of how to pair wines, even the house wine.  The guide lists 1,617 osterias or trattorias, and the best ones are indicated by the snail symbol of the Slow Food Movement (SFM).  In 1986, an Italian food and wine journalist Carlo Petrini started the SFM.  He was haunted by the spectre of fast food companies eroding Italy’s ancient culinary culture.  The opening of McDonald’s on the Spanish Steps in Rome was the last straw.  Today the snail symbol is a prestigious badge of honor for Italy’s best trattorias.

Posted in Abitudini, Cucina italiana, English, Foto, Italia, Storia | Leave a comment

Il minimo comune denominatore

Ho recentemente letto un articolo nel Washington Post sull’impatto della televisione sulla politica populista in Italia. La storia comincia con l’apertura delle onde radio dalla Radiotelevisione italiana (RAI), società di radiodiffusione pubblica nazionale di proprietà del Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze.  Conosciuta dal 1954 come Radio Audizioni Italiane, una grande parte della sua programmazione dopo la seconda guerra mondiale era influenzata dalla BBC ed aveva trasmissioni per lo più a contenuto educativo.  Programmi come Non è mai troppo tardi e Un viaggio al Po hanno permesso agli italiani di conoscere altre regioni del paese, in un momento in cui la maggior parte delle persone non poteva permettersi di viaggiare.

Poi, negli anni ’80, una rete di canali aggressivo e poco raffinati, chiamati Mediaset sono entrati nel mercato e si sono rapidamente diffusi in tutto il paese. I propri programmi — cartoni animati, soap opera, sport, film e altro leggero intrattenimento—erano in contrasto con la missione educativa della RAI.  Mediaset trasmetteva film e intrattenimento quasi tre volte di più rispetto alla RAI e, al contrario, non offrendo al contrario, quasi nessun programma educativo e poche notizie.  Nel 1990 metà del paese aveva accesso a Mediaset, permettendo ciò a ricercatori di diversi campi di analizzare l’impatto della televisione sulla politica del paese.

I risultati sono scoraggianti.  Senza approfondire le metodologie dei ricercatori, i dati  mostrano che la continua esposizione alla programmazione scadente di Mediaset era affiancata da messaggi semplici e risposte facili, mezzi questi per un valido supporto ai candidati populisti.  Naturalmente, sappiamo che il fondatore e proprietario di Mediaset è Silvio Berlusconi, politico populista ed ex primo ministro. Ma i ricercatori sottolineano che il rapporto tra media popolari e politica populista non è solo un effetto Berlusconi.  Si estende ai suoi concorrenti, in particolare al Movimento a Cinque Stelle.  Questo partito è stato fondato dal comico Beppo Grillo una decina di anni fa ed è diventato il secondo più grande partito del Parlamento italiano dalle elezioni del 2018.

Il ruolo della televisione nel movimento populista non viene dalla messaggistica politica ma dall’intrattenimento. L’effetto elettorale è di circa 10 punti percentuali tra i due gruppi che hanno visto di più Mediaset – quelli di età inferiore ai 10 anni e quelli di 55 anni e più. I ricercatori hanno scoperto che i giovani che guardavano tale programmazione durante i loro anni di formazione sono cresciuti per essere “meno cognitivamente sofisticati e meno civici e meno politicamente attivi” rispetto ai loro coetanei che seguivano le trasmissioni pubbliche, cioè della RAI. Da adulti hanno registrato punteggi di matematica e di lettura significativamente peggiori di quelli dei loro coetanei. Le loro opinioni populiste derivano dalla semplicità della programmazione, dalla semplicità del linguaggio dei politici populisti.

Gli effetti di “brain-numbing” non erano così pronunciati negli italiani più adulti che seguivano Mediaset; i punteggi dei loro test erano simili a quelli dei loro colleghi. Le loro opinioni populiste erano influenzate dalle notizie che guardavano su Mediaset. Le domande e le ricerche continuano … compreso il potenziale impatto di Fox News negli Stati Uniti sulle opinioni populiste. La domanda nella mia mente è se la connessione è causalità o correlazione. Si potrebbe pensare che ci siano altri fattori in gioco. Ma come dice l’articolo del Washington Post, “questa è una storia su come il minimo comune denominatore dei media popolari abbia spianato la strada al minimo comune denominatore della politica populista”.

Posted in Abitudini, Italia, Italiano, La Gente, Politica, Storia | 1 Comment

The Lowest Common Denominator

I recently read an article in The Washington Post about the impact of television on populist politics in Italy.  The story really begins with the opening of Italy’s airwaves by Radiotelevisione italiana (RAI), which is the national public broadcasting company owned by the Ministry of Economy and Finance.  Known until 1954 as Radio Audizioni Italiane, much of its programming following WWII was influenced by the BBC.  The emphasis was on educational content.  Programs like Non è mai troppo tardi and Un viaggio al Po introduced people to life in other parts of the country at a time when most people couldn’t afford to travel.

Then in the 1980s, an aggressive and unabashedly unsophisticated channel called Mediaset entered the market and quickly spread across the country.  It countered RAI’s educational mission with cartoons, soap operas, sports, movies and other light entertainment.  Mediaset provided almost three times as many hours of movies and entertainment as RAI did and, by contrast, offered almost no news or educational programming.  By 1990 half the country had access to Mediaset, which allowed researchers, in various studies, to analyze the impact of television on the country’s politics.

The results are disheartening.  Without delving into the researchers’ methodologies, the data (from many sources by many researchers from many countries in many studies) show that continued exposure to Mediaset’s “trashy” programming led to solid support for populist candidates selling simple messages and easy answers.  Of course, we know that Mediaset’s founder and controlling owner is Silvio Berlusconi, populist politician and former prime minister. But the researchers emphasize and prove that the relationship between popular media and populist politics is not just a Berlusconi effect.  It extends to his competitors, particularly the Five Star Movement.  This party was founded by comedian Beppo Grillo a decade ago and has become the second largest party in Italy’s Parliament since the 2018 election.

Television’s role in the populist movement comes not from political messaging but from entertainment. The electoral effect is about 10 percentage points among the two groups that watched Mediaset the most—those under the age of 10 and those 55 and older.  Researchers found that young people who watched this programming during their formative years grew up to be “less cognitively sophisticated and less civically minded and less politically active” than their counterparts who had access to public broadcasting.  As adults they had math and reading scores significantly worse than those of their peers. Their populist views came from the similarity between the simplicity of the programming and the simplicity of the language and messages of the populist politicians.

“Brain-numbing” effects weren’t as pronounced in Italians exposed to Mediaset later in life; their test scores were similar to those of their peers.  Their populist views were influenced by the news which they tended to watch on Mediaset rather than from other broadcasters.

The questions and research continue…including the potential impact of Fox News in the United States on populist views.  The question in my mind is whether the connection is causation or correlation. One would think that there are other factors at play.  But as the Washington Post article says, “this is a story about how the lowest common denominator of popular media paved the way for the lowest common denominator of populist politics.”

Posted in Abitudini, Differenze culturali, English, Italia, Politica, Storia | 1 Comment