How do you balance institutional responsibilities with research and teaching?
It's a constant challenge. The word that comes to mind is "balance," though it's often more about dynamic adaptation than true balance. Institutional work requires time and attention, but I consider teaching and research essential, not only for my work but also for maintaining direct contact with the younger generations. Teaching, in particular, is a privilege: every year I meet students, most between the ages of 18 and 23-24, and seeing their interest in what I'm teaching is incredibly inspiring. At the same time, scientific research continues through projects and working groups that allow me to learn daily not only from my colleagues but also from other young doctoral students and postdocs.
Your academic and research career is marked by intense international relationships. How have these relationships influenced your approach to media history?
"Decisively. Having studied and worked in various fields has taught me that technologies are never neutral: they are used differently depending on cultures, social contexts, and economic conditions. This leads to developing a comparative perspective, which is essential in media studies. There is no single evolutionary trajectory: what happens in Europe can be very different from what happens in Asia or other contexts. This awareness helps avoid simplistic and deterministic interpretations of technology."
You study media history from a long-term perspective. What continuities and discontinuities emerge between analog and digital?
We often tend to emphasize ruptures, but the history of media is also made up of profound continuities. To borrow a famous metaphor from the historian Fernand Braudel, we might say that we focus too much on "surface waves" and too little on deep currents.
Technologies change, but many logics remain the same: if I had to quickly mention one thing that stands out today, it's the speed of change and the global scale of phenomena. The shift to digital has accelerated processes and radically transformed economic models, but it hasn't erased the fundamental dynamics of communication.
One of your recent projects concerns the history of the web. Which aspects do you think are most relevant for the general public?
An important point is to clarify an often overlooked distinction: the Internet and the web are not the same thing. The Internet is the infrastructure, the web is one of the services that runs on it. The web was born in Europe, at CERN in Geneva, between the late 80s and early 90s, with the aim of facilitating the sharing of information among researchers. One of the decisive decisions was to make it free and open source in 1993: a far from obvious decision, which shaped its subsequent development. Another interesting aspect is that the web could have evolved very differently. Today we perceive it as an open space, but it is increasingly dominated by large platforms that have partially limited its original nature as a free and decentralized network.
What role does the historical dimension have today in understanding contemporary communication phenomena?
It's crucial. We live in an era where every new technology is presented as a revolution. But without a historical perspective, we risk falling into what we might call an "ideology of the digital revolution." History teaches us that changes are often more gradual and complex than they appear. It helps us distinguish between real innovations and constructed narratives, and better understand long-term dynamics.
Looking at the global landscape, what dynamics are emerging in media systems today?
We are witnessing growing polycentrism. While in the past, dominance was predominantly Western, today there are new significant hubs. China, for example, has become a central player in both technological production and communication models. At the same time, strong concentrations of power persist: a few large companies, mostly American, control platforms used by billions of people. It's an interesting paradox: on the one hand, geographical plurality, on the other, economic concentration.
What is your assessment of the current state of the media, even at the local level?
Traditional media still maintain strong credibility, especially in times of crisis. However, they face significant economic challenges: advertising revenue has shifted to digital platforms, and this has reduced the sustainability of many publishing models. Consumption patterns have also changed: less newspaper reading, less linear television, more fragmented and personalized content. In some contexts, new models are being experimented with, such as events or podcasts, but the future remains uncertain.
In this scenario, how do the expectations of students approaching communication change?
«Today's students are highly aware of the complexity of the world they live in, but they are also more exposed to fragilities, such as anxieties related to the uncertainty of the future.
Our task is not just to teach technical tools, which are rapidly becoming obsolete, but to provide a cultural toolbox: critical thinking, historical awareness, and adaptability. More and more young people are also perceiving the need to disconnect, at least temporarily, from a constant and often overwhelming flow of information. This is an interesting sign, pointing to a growing reflexivity in media use.
Can we say, then, that humanistic education is once again central?
«Absolutely yes… and let me say especially in the era of AI. Technical skills are important, but without a solid cultural foundation, it's difficult to interpret the world. Asking the right questions is often more important than getting immediate answers. The humanities and social sciences offer precisely this: tools to understand, contextualize, and, above all, avoid passively undergoing technological transformations.
