The very first line of that English language article immediately references the Holocaust. It seems that journalists are finding it completely impossible to discuss anything at all without instantly making it about Nazi Germany and the Second World War. Moreover, after all of the idiotic comparisons between Russia and the Soviet Union, it is refreshing to see yet another one of these - apparently, Italian public culture is still subverted by communist Russian spies, just like during the Cold War! One might wonder why they didn't mention Dugin.

The second half of the article is particularly interesting as a fascinating and incomprehensible example of doublethink:

The Italian case is illustrative of a fundamental misconception: confusing pluralism with the equal treatment of all opinions in the public space.

Sure, pluralism and free speech are fundamental to democracy. But democracy must also be based on truth, and in a democracy, truth results from pluralism, not from censorship. In the same way, our democratic demand to be heard only subsists if we recognize the equal rights of others. This is what makes democracy the best way to arbitrate and reconcile different preferences.

So according to the above quote, truth is a result of pluralism, meaning that truth can only be discovered by examining different views in an equal manner. This claim alone seems to undermine the entire point of the article.

But at the same time, democracy demands evidence-based truth, and confusing the need to guarantee pluralism with that of giving equal credibility and authority to all opinions is a mistake. In such a setting, there would be no good or bad arguments, no truth or lies, and our opinions and political positions could be distorted accordingly.

How does one "give credibility and authority" to an opinion? What happened to truth arising from pluralism? Suddenly it appears that truthfulness is bestowed upon opinions by people. Moreover, there is a huge difference between saying "not all opinions are equally true" and "we will decide which opinions are true and which ones aren't, and we will tell you the ones that are truthful, and prevent you from speaking about anything else other than what we tell you". Very conveniently, the public is presented as an extremely stupid entity that needs its thinking done for it by other people, presumably by even more stupid journalists. Since the dividing line between truths and lies seems so clear, it should be perfectly possible for the common people to make up their own minds by judging the veracity of competing claims.

Instead, democracy has arbitration and editorial processes — not imposed but resulting from the practice of pluralism itself. Talk shows do not have to give space to anyone who demands freedom of expression; newspapers do not have to publish every letter they receive. In a democracy, citizens should be able to trust the media’s ability to guarantee pluralism on the one hand, and the credibility and veracity of what is said on the other.

I don't even know where to begin with this bit. I am not sure anything in this paragraph makes sense. Democracy gives us pluralism which gives us truth, but we must undemocratically verify the "truth" and give it to the masses while deliberately excluding "untruthful" things, and in so doing, by silencing other people and erasing their perspectives, we are engaging in pluralism. The provision of this pluralism, and also of the "credibility and veracity" of information, or in other words the truth - which, curiously, no longer seems to be a natural result of pluralism but must be maintained alongside it - is defined as the duty of the media.

Any uncritical defense of pro-Russian positions in the media space abdicates this editorial responsibility , relegating platforms to mere sounding boards. This is the key difference between state-controlled media without the freedom to inform and organizations with editorial independence. It is the main reason why we do not hold the BBC or CNN — which have grilled Russian officials in recent weeks — as equivalent to Russia Today or Sputnik.

I am not sure anyone asked for the "critical thinking" that journalists seem so eager to provide all the time. I think most people would prefer to judge things for themselves.

The need for the media to report on Ukrainian and Russian positions cannot be confused with the attribution of equal space and treatment. That would be, to revisit “Man of the Year,” as if pluralism demanded any program on the Holocaust must feature an honored historian debating alongside a Holocaust denier. And in Italy, this false equivalence has come dangerously close to reality.

What false equivalence? If one side is made up of "experts" who speak "the truth" and the other is made up of lying scoundrels and "lunatics" who are deluded and utterly deranged, how can we speak in any way of a false equivalence? It would be tremendously obvious which side is correct and which side is not. It would be on the audience to make false equivalences, not on the journalists or the moderators allowing a debate between "honoured experts" and "lunatics".