Adevărul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adevărul

Adevărul logo
Type	daily
Format	compact
Owner	Adevărul Holding
Publisher	Adrian Halpert
Editor	Laurenţiu Ciocăzanu
Staff writers	18[1]
Founded	1871 1888 1946 1989
Headquarters	Casa Presei Libere Piaţa Presei Libere, Nr. 1, Sector 1, Bucharest
Circulation	37,000 to 110,000
ISSN	1016-7587
Website	adevarul.ro

Adevărul ("The Truth", formerly known as Adevĕrul) is a Romanian daily newspaper, based in Bucharest. Founded in 1871 and reestablished in 1888, it was the main left-wing press venue under the Romanian Kingdom period, adopting an independent pro-democratic position, advocating land reform and universal suffrage. Under its successive editors Alexandru Beldiman and Constantin Mille, it became noted for its virulent criticism of King Carol I, which developed into a republican and socialist agenda, attracting Adevărul hostility from the Kingdom's authorities. As innovative publications which set up several local and international records during the early 20th century, Adevărul and its sister daily Dimineaţa competed for the top position with the right-wing Universul before and throughout the interwar period. In 1920, Adevărul also began publishing its prestigious cultural supplement, Adevărul Literar şi Artistic. By the 1930s, their anti-fascism and the Jewish ethnicity of their new owners made Adevărul and Dimineaţa the targets of negative campaigns in the far right press, and the antisemitic Octavian Goga cabinet banned them down upon obtaining power in 1937. Adevărul was revived by Barbu Brănişteanu after World War II, but was targeted by Communist Romania's censorship apparatus and again closed down in 1951.

A newspaper of the same name was set up in 1989, just days after the Romanian Revolution, replacing Scînteia, organ of the defunct Romanian Communist Party. Initially a supporter of the dominant National Salvation Front, it adopted a controversial position, being much criticized for producing populist and radical nationalist messages and for supporting the violent Mineriad of 1990. Under editors Dumitru Tinu and Cristian Tudor Popescu, when it reasserted its independence and was fully privatized, Adevărul became one of the most popular and trusted press venues. It nevertheless remained involved in scandals over alleged or confirmed political and commercial dealings, culminating in a 2005 conflict which saw the departure of Popescu, Bogdan Chireac and other panelists and the creation of rival newspaper Gândul. As of 2006, Adevărul is the property of Dinu Patriciu, a prominent Romanian businessman and politician.

[edit] Ownership, editorial team and structure

Adevărul is the main trademark of Adevărul Holding, a company owned by Patriciu and having Adrian Halpert as its editorial director.^[1] The main newspaper itself is edited by editorial director Laurenţiu Ciocăzanu and a team comprising editor-in-chief Grigore Cartianu and five deputy editors (Adriana Halpert, Ion M. Ioniţă, Emilian Isailă, Ovidiu Nahoi and Andrei Velea).^[1] Also part of the holding are the cultural magazine Dilema Veche, the tabloid Click!, the international policy magazine Foreign Policy Romania, the Romanian edition of Forbes magazine, and Blik, a Ukrainian tabloid.

The newspaper has special pages of regional content, one each for Bucharest, Transylvania, Moldavia, the western areas of Banat and Crişana, and the southern areas of Wallachia and Northern Dobruja. It also hosts columns about the larger sections of Romanian diaspora in Europe, those in Spain and Italy. Adevărul publishes several supplements. In addition to Adevărul Literar şi Artistic (formerly a separate magazine, now issued as a culture supplement which is issued on Wednesdays), it publishes five others: on Mondays, the sports magazine Antifotbal ("Anti-football"), which focuses on the traditionally less-covered areas of the Romanian sports scene; on Tuesdays, Adevărul Expert Imobiliar ("Real Estate Expert"); on Thursdays, Adevărul Sănătate ("Health"), a health and lifestyle magazine; on Fridays, TV guide, Adevărul Ghid TV, followed on Sundays by the entertainment section Magazin de Duminică ("Sunday Magazine"). In October 2008, Adevărul has also launched Adevărul de Seară ("Evening Adevărul"), a free daily newspaper and evening edition.

As of 2008, the newspaper publishes Colecţia Adevărul, a collection of classic and popular works in world and Romanian literature. These are issued as additional supplements, and sold as such with the newspaper's Thursday editions.

[edit] History

[edit] Origins

First version of the Adevĕrul logo (front page of the first issue in the 1888 series). A similar version was used in the early 1990s (Adevărul, in light blue, with identical typeface).

A newspaper by the name Adevĕrulŭ (pronounced the same as Adevărul, but following versions of the Romanian alphabet which emphasized etymology, in this case from the Latin word veritas) was originally founded on December 15, 1871.^[2] The weekly was owned by Alexandru Beldiman, a former Police commander, and published in Iaşi, the former capital of Moldavia. Beldiman directed the newspaper in opposition to Romania's new Domnitor, the German prince Carol of Hohenzollern, calling for the restoration of his deposed and exiled predecessor, the Moldavian-born Alexander John Cuza.^[2] Its articles against the new monarch soon after resulted in Beldiman's indictment for defamation and attack on the 1866 Constitution.^[2] He was eventually acquitted, but the journal ceased publication with its 13th issue (April 1872).^[2]

Adevărul reemerged as a daily on August 15, 1888, seven years after the proclamation of a Romanian Kingdom. It was then known as Adevĕrul, which also reflected the veritas origin, and the ĕ, although obsolete by the early 20th century, was kept as a distinctive sign by all the journal's owners until 1951.^[2][3] Initially financed by a printer, who agreed to advance it a short-term credit,^[4] the new journal was co-founded by Alexandru Beldiman and Alexandru Al. Ioan, the son of former Domnitor Cuza, and was again noted for its radical and often irreverent critique of newly-crowned King Carol and the "foreign dynasty".^[2][5][6][3] The small editorial team included writer Grigore Ventura and his son Constantin, as well as, after a while, political columnist I. Hussar.^[5] In December 1888, it changed its format, from a No. 6 to a No. 10 in paper size, while abandoning the initial, calligraphed logo, in favor of a standard serif which it used until 1951.^[5]

Beldiman's hostility to the monarchy was reflected in one of the 15 objectives set by the second series' first issue, whereby Adevărul called for an elective monarchy with offices only accessible to locals,^[5] and evident in having chosen for the paper's motto a quote from poet Vasile Alecsandri, which read: Să te feresci, Române!, de cuiŭ strein în casă ("Romanians, beware of foreign nails in your house", an allusion to Carol's German origin).^[2][5][3] The journalists called Carol's accession to the throne by the 1866 plebiscite "an undignified comedy",^[6] refused to capitalize references to M. S. Regele ("H[is] M[ajesty] the King"),^[2] and referred to May 10, the national celebration of the Kingdom, as a "national day of mourning".^[2][7] According to one account, after the newspaper's first May 10 issue came out in 1889, Police forces bought copies which they later set on fire.^[7] Reportedly, its circulation peaked on May 10 of each year, from some 5,000 to some 25,000 or 30,000 copies.^[2][8] Adevărul also debated with the German newspapers Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung and Kölnische Zeitung, who worried that Romania's anti-dynasticists plotted Carol's murder, assuring them that they fight was carried "in broad daylight, on the wide path of public opinion."^[6] In 1891, it called for boycotting Carol's 25th anniversary on the throne.^[6]

[edit] Early campaigns

Located in Bucharest, the new Adevărul had its original headquarters in Calea Victoriei (Doamnei Street, Nouă Street, Brătianu Boulevard and Enei Street).^[5][9] It later moved to a building near the National Bank and the Vilacrosse Passage, where it occupied just several rooms (leading its staff to repeatedly complain about the lack of space).^[3][9][10] A serious crisis occurred during 1892, when, having omitted to register his trademark, Beldiman was confronted with the appearance of a competing Adevărul, published by his former associate Toma Basilescu, who had been the original journal's administrator for the previous year.^[7] In June 1892, an arbitral tribunal decided in favor of Beldiman, ordering Basilescu to close down his paper.^[7]

With time, the newspaper had moved from advocating King Carol's replacement with a local ruler to supporting republicanism.^[6] In 1893, as part of its extended campaign, during which it gathered letters of protest from its readers, Adevărul obtained the cancellation of plans for a public subscription to celebrate the engagement of Crown Prince Ferdinand to Marie of Edinburgh.^[6] In addition, the journal began militating for a number of major social and political causes, which it perceived as essential to democracy. In its 15 points of 1888, it notably demanded universal suffrage to replace the census method enshrined in the 1866 Constitution, unicameralism through a disestablishment of the Senate, a land reform to replace leasehold estates, self-governance at a local level, progressive taxation, Sunday rest for employees, universal conscription instead of a permanent under arms force, women's rights, emancipation for Romanian Jews.^[5] It embraced the cause of Romanians living outside the Old Kingdom, particularly those in Austro-Hungarian-ruled Transylvania,^[5][6] while calling for Romania to separate itself from its commitment to the Triple Alliance, and advocating a Balkan Federation to include Romania.^[5]

Adevărul also took an active interest in the problems facing Romania's rural population: while calling for a land reform, it expressed condemnation of the failing sanitary system, which it blamed for the frequency of countryside epidemics, and for the administrative system, which it accused of corruption.^[6] It depicted revolt as legitimate, and campaigned in favor of amnesty for prisoners taken after the 1888 peasant riots.^[6] The paper supported educational reforms in the countryside, calling attention to the specific issues faced by rural teachers, but also campaigned against their use of corporal punishment as a method of maintaining school discipline.^[6] In similar vein, Adevărul focused on cases of abuse within the Romanian Army, documenting cases where soldiers were being illegally used as indentured servants, noting the unsanitary conditions which accounted for an unusually high rate of severe conjunctivitis, and condemning officers for regularly beating their subordinates.^[6] As part of the latter campaign, it focused on Crown Prince Ferdinand, who was tasked with instructing a battalion and is said to have slapped a soldier for not performing the proper moves.^[6] Adevărul investigated numerous other excesses of authority, and on several occasions formed special investigative commissions of reporters who followed suspicions of judicial error.^[6] It also spoke out in favor of Jewish emancipation, while theorizing a difference between the minority "exploiting Jews" and an assimilable Jewish majority.^[6]

Under Beldiman, the newspaper took pride in stating its independence, by taking distance from the two dominant parties, the Conservatives and the National Liberal Party, who either supported or tolerated King Carol.^[2] This stance reputedly earned the publication an unusual status: anecdotes have it that Conservative leader Lascăr Catargiu would only read Adevărul while in the opposition, and that its columnist Albert Honigman was the first and for long time only journalist allowed into the upper-class society at Casa Capşa restaurant.^[10] In February 1889, the Conservative Premier Theodor Rosetti reputedly tried to silence Adevărul by having its distributors arrested.^[7] In 1892, Adevărul became the first local newspaper to feature a cartoonist section, which hosted caricatures of the period's potentates, and its rebelliousness allegedly frightened the Romanian zincographers to the point where the plates had to be created abroad.^[4] In April 1893, the Catargiu cabinet organized a clampdown on the newspaper: it arrested its editor Eduard Dioghenide (who was sentenced to a year in prison on charges of sedition) and, profiting from the non-emancipated status of Romanian Jews, it expelled its Jewish contributors I. Hussar and Carol Schulder.^[7] Another incident occurred during May of the following year, when the paper's headquarters were attacked by rioting University of Bucharest students, who were reportedly outraged by an article critical of their behavior, but also believed to have been instigated by the Conservatives executive's Gendarmerie.^[7]

In parallel, the journal took steps to establishing its reputation as a newspaper of record. A local first was established in June 1894, when Adevărul hosted the first foreign correspondence article received by a Romanian periodical: a telegram sent by the French socialist newspaperman Victor Jaclard, discussing the assassination of Marie François Sadi Carnot and the accession of Jean Casimir-Perier to the office of President.^[4] Adevărul also broke ground by publishing a plate portrait of Carnot only a day after his rise to prominence.^[4] Early on, the newspaper also had a cultural agenda, striving to promote Romanian literature for the general public and following a method outlined by a 1913 article: "In his free time [...], the reader, having satisfied his curiosity about the daily events, finds entertainment for the soul in the newspaper's literary column. People who would not spend a dime on literary works, will nevertheless read literature once this is made available to them, in a newspaper they bought for the information it provides."^[11] Initially, Adevărul dedicated its Sunday issue to literary contributions, receiving such pieces from George Coşbuc, Haralamb Lecca, Ioan N. Roman, and the adolescent poet Ştefan Octavian Iosif.^[11]

[edit] Mille's arrival

Adevărul editors in 1897. Constantin Mille is first seated from left. Standing behind him are Ioan Bacalbaşa (middle) and Constantin Bacalbaşa (right).

By 1893, the journal's panel came to include several leading activists of the newly-created Romanian Social Democratic Workers' Party (PSDMR), among them Constantin Mille and brothers Tony and Ioan Bacalbaşa.^[3][10] In 1895, Mille purchased the newspaper, but, even though the Alecsandri motto was removed a short while after,^[3] Beldiman maintained editorial control until his death three years later, explaining that he was doing so in order to maintain an independent line.^[2][3] Mille was an innovator, seen by his contemporaries as a "father of modern Romanian journalism" (a title carved on his tombstone in Bellu cemetery).^[3] The purchase was received with consternation by many PSDMR members, particularly since Adevărul competed with its official platform Lumea Nouă.^[12] Eventually, the party expelled Mille on grounds of having betrayed socialism.^[12][3] In parallel, allegedly upset that Beldiman had chosen Mille's offer over his own, Tony Bacalbaşa quit Adevărul, becoming one of his former colleague's most vocal critics.^[3]

In 1904, the board created Adevĕrul S. A., the first in a series of joint stock companies meant to insure its control of commercial rights.^[13] In 1898, after Mille invested its profits into real estate, Adevărul left its crowded surroundings and moved to a specially-designed new building on Sărindar Street (the present-day Constantin Mille Street, between Calea Victoriei and the Cişmigiu Gardens). Based on the example set in France by Le Figaro,^[3][4] the palatial headquarters was the first building of such proportions in the history of Romania's printed press, housing a printing press, paper storage, distribution office and mail room, as well as a library, several archives, a phone station and a Romanian Orthodox chapel.^[3][4][9] Its halls were luxuriously decorated according to Mille's specifications, and adorned with posters by international artists such as Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec and Alfons Mucha, and by the journal's occasional illustrator Nicolae Vermont.^[3][9] Around 1900, Mille purchased a neighboring plot, the former Saint-Frères manufacturing plant, and unified both buildings under a single facade.^[9] It was there that, after placing an order with the Mergenthaler Company, he installed the first Linotype machines to be used locally.^[3][4][9][8]

In order to consecrate the newspaper's cultural ambitions, Mille became head of a literary club,^[3] while he considered creating a separate literary edition. A literary supplement (Adevĕrul Literar, "The Literary Truth") was in print between 1894 and 1896, before being replaced by Adevĕrul Ilustrat ("The Illustrated Truth") and soon after by Adevĕrul de Joi ("The Truth on Thursday"), edited by poet Artur Stavri, and eventually closed down due to lack of funding in 1897.^[11] Although short-lived, these publications had a significant part on the cultural scene, and hosted contributions by influential, mostly left-wing, cultural figures: Stavri, Constantin D. Anghel, Traian Demetrescu, Arthur Gorovei, Ion Gorun, Henri Sanielevici, Solomon Sanielevici and Constantin Stere.^[11] In return for the 1897 setback, the main journal began allocating space to serialized works of literature, including sketches by prominent Romanian satirist Ion Luca Caragiale (most of the writings later published as Momente şi schiţe), as well The Count of Monte Cristo, a popular adventure novel by French author Alexandre Dumas, père.^[11] In later years, Adevărul experimented by publishing a different supplement each day, including one titled Litere şi Arte ("Arts and Letters").^[11]

[edit] Rise in popularity and 1907 Revolt

Adevărul established itself as the most circulated paper, setting up successive records in terms of copies per issue due to Mille's favorable approach to modern printing techniques: from 10,000 in 1894, these brought the circulation to 12,000 in 1895 and 30,000 in 1907.^[8] In 1904, making efforts to keep up with his rival Luigi Cazzavillan, founder of the right-wing competitor Universul,^[3] Mille established a morning edition, which was emancipated under separate management in December of the same year, under the new name Dimineaţa^[3][4][9] (in 1912, the latter would become known as the first local daily to use full color print, with a claim to have been the world's first such newspaper).^[3][4] Beginning 1905, both journals ensured stable revenues by leasing their classified advertising sections to Carol Schulder's Schulder Agency.^[4]

By 1905, Adevărul was publishing a supplement titled Viaţa Literară ("The Literary Life", edited by Coşbuc, Gorun and Ilarie Chendi) and two other satirical periodicals, Belgia Orientului ("The Orient's Belgium", named after a common sarcastic reference to the Romanian Kingdom) and Nea Ghiţă ("Uncle Ghiţă").^[11] It also began running its own publishing house, Editura Adevĕrul, noted early on for its editions of Constantin Mille's novels, Caragiale's sketches, and George Panu's memoirs of his time with the literary club Junimea.^[11] In parallel, Mille reached out into other areas of local culture. Early on, he instituted a tradition of monthly festivities, paid for from his own pocket, and noted for the participation of leading figures in Romanian theater (Maria Giurgea, Constantin Nottara and Aristizza Romanescu among them).^[10] During the mid 1890s, the paper was encouraging developments in visual arts in Romania by publishing several original posters,^[4] and, beginning 1905, had for its illustrator Iosif Iser, one of the major graphic artists of his generation, whose satirical drawings most often targeted Carol I and Russian Emperor Nicholas II (attacked for violently suppressing the 1905 Revolution).^[14] As a promotional tactic, it participated in the National Fair of 1906, where it exemplified its printing techniques while putting out a collector's version of the newspaper, titled Adevĕrul la Expoziţie ("Adevĕrul at the Exhibit").^[4]

Several mass social, cultural and political campaigns were initiated or endorsed by Adevărul before 1910. According to one of Constantin Mille's columns of 1906, the journal continued to see itself as an advocate of people's causes: "Any of our readers know that, should any injustice be committed against them, should all authorities discard them, they will still find shelter under this newspaper's roof."^[3] In line with Beldiman and Mille's political vision, it militated for a statue of Domnitor Cuza to be erected in Iaşi (such a monument being eventually inaugurated in 1912).^[8] Similar initiatives included the 1904 event marking 400 years since the death of Moldavian Prince Stephen the Great, and the erection in Craiova of a bust honoring its deceased contributor, poet Traian Demetrescu.^[8] At around the same time, Mille's journal became a noted supporter of feminism, and created a special column, Cronica femeii ("The Woman's Chronicle"), assigned to female journalist Ecaterina Raicoviceanu-Fulmen.^[15] Over the following decade, it hosted regular contributions by other militant women, among them Lucreţia Karnabatt, E. Marghita, Maura Prigor, Laura Vampa and Aida Vrioni.^[15]

Having endorsed the creation of a journalists' trade union and a Romanian Writers' Society, the newspaper also claimed to have inspired the idea of a Bucharest ambulance service, a project taken up by physician Nicolae Minovici and fulfilled in 1906.^[8] Despite his leftist sympathies, Mille found himself in conflict with Romania's labor movement: believing that the Linotype machines would render their jobs obsolete, they went on strike, before the editor himself resolved to educate them all in the new techniques.^[4]

Pursuing its interest in the peasant question, Adevărul was one of the main factors of dissent during the 1907 Peasant Revolt, which was violently quelled by the National Liberal cabinet of Dimitrie Sturdza. The paper reported on or made allegations about the shooting and maltreatment of peasants, reputedly to the point where government officials promised to end repression if Mille agreed to tone down his publication.^[6] Various researchers accuse Mille of having seriously exaggerated the scale of repression for political purposes.^[16][17] Historian Anton Caragea, who theorizes the intrusion of Austria-Hungary, argues that, having received payments from Austro-Hungarian spies, both Adevărul and Universul were conditioned to incite public sentiment against the National Liberal cabinet of Dimitrie Sturdza.^[17] Soon after the revolt, Editura Adevĕrul published Caragiale's 1907, din primăvară până în toamnă ("1907, From Spring to Autumn"), an attack on the Kingdom's institutions and analysis of its failures in connection to the rebellion, which was an instant best-seller.^[18][11]

[edit] 1910s and World War I

Bucharest demonstration in favor of Romania's entry into World War I (1915 or 1916).

Following the 1907 events, the journal participated in an extended anti-monarchy campaign, which also involved Facla, a magazine edited by the republican and socialist journalist N. D. Cocea, as well as anarchist milieus.^[19] In 1912, it participated in one of Cocea's publicity stunts, during which the Facla editor, together with his colleague, poet Tudor Arghezi, simulated their own trial for lèse majesté, by reporting the mock procedures and hosting advertisements for Facla.^[19] Like Facla itself, Adevărul circulated stereotypical satires of Carol I, constantly referring to him as neamţul ("the German" in colloquial terms) or căpuşa ("the tick").^[19] In parallel, Adevărul resumed its cultural and social campaigning. By 1908, it was taking an interest in the emerging European avant-garde, but was reserved toward its most radical representative, Futurism, while deploring the end of literary realism.^[20] Its ongoing support for Jewish emancipation was accompanied by a sympathetic take on the growing Zionist movement, attitudes which prompted historian Nicolae Iorga, leader of the antisemitic Democratic Nationalist Party, to accuse the newspaper of cultivating a "Jewish national sentiment" which, he claimed, had for its actual goal the destruction of Romania.^[21]

In 1912, the combined circulation of Adevărul and Dimineaţa exceeded 100,000 copies, bringing it a revenue of 1 million lei.^[8] It had become the highest-grossing, but also the highest-paying press venue, and consequently the most sought-after employer: in 1913, it had a writing and technical staff of 250 people (whose salaries amounted to some 540,000 lei), in addition to whom it employed 60 correspondents and 1,800 official distributors.^[8] Adevărul reportedly had a notoriously stiff editorial policy, outlined by Mille and applied by his administrative editor Sache Petreanu, which including fining its proofreaders by the number of typos.^[8][10] Mille himself repeatedly urged his employees to keep up with the events, notably by decking the walls with portraits of a 19th century press figure, Zaharia Carcalechi, rendered a negative example for his habit of printing issues of his periodicals at highly irregular intervals.^[3] In addition to establishing permanent telephone links within Austria-Hungary (in both Vienna and Budapest), Adevărul maintained a regular correspondence with various Balkan capitals, and pioneered shorthand in transcribing interviews.^[4] Among its indigenous journalists to be sent on special assignment abroad were Emil Fagure and Barbu Brănişteanu, who reported on the 1908 Young Turk Revolution from inside the Ottoman Empire, as well as from the Principality of Bulgaria and the Kingdom of Serbia.^[4]

Such efforts, the newspaper itself later claimed, meant that it was among the first in the world to report several European events: the 1911 food riots in Vienna, the outbreak of the First Balkan War, and the diplomatic conflict between the Greek and Bulgarian Kingdoms in the run-up to the Second Balkan War.^[4] During the two conflicts, Adevărul also employed several literary and political personalities as its correspondents: the paper's future manager Iacob Rosenthal in Sofia, Serbian journalist Pera Taletov in Belgrade, Romanian writer Argentina Monteoru in Istanbul, and Prince Albert Gjika in Cetinje.^[4] In July 1913, the newspaper reported extensively on massacres committed by the Hellenic Army in Dojran, Kilkis and other settlements of Macedonia, while discussing the "terror regime" instituted in Bulgaria by Tsar Ferdinand I.^[22] Later the same month, as Romania joined the anti-Bulgarian coalition and her troops entered Southern Dobruja, Adevărul gave coverage to the spread of cholera among soldiers, accusing the Conservative executive headed by Titu Maiorescu of hiding its actual toll.^[23]

Also at that stage, the newspaper had become known for organizing raffles, which provided winners with expensive prizes, such as real estate and furniture.^[8] It was also the first periodical to have established itself in the countryside, a record secured through a special contract with the Romanian Post, whereby postmen acted as press distributors, allowing some 300 press storage rooms to be established nationally.^[3][8] Political differences of the period, pitting Adevărul editors against National Liberal politicos, threatened this monopoly: under National Liberal cabinets, the Post was prevented from distributing the newspaper, leading it it to rely on subscriptions and private distributors.^[8] Famous among the latter were Bucharest paperboys, who advertised Adevărul with political songs such as the republican anthem La Marseillaise.^[8]

After the outbreak of World War I, the newspaper further divided the surviving socialist camp by swinging into the interventionist group, calling for a declaration of war against the Central Powers.^[24] In early winter 1915, it publicized the visit of British scholar Hugh Seton-Watson, who campaigned in favor of the Entente Powers and supported the interventionist Cultural League for the Unity of All Romanians. In his interview with Adevărul, Seton-Watson identified the goals of Romanians with those of Serbs and Croats, stressing that their common interest called for the partition of Austria-Hungary, ending what he called "the brutal and artificial domination of the Magyar race".^[25] The interventionist campaign peaked in summer 1916, when it became apparent that Ion I. C. Brătianu's National Liberal cabinet was pondering Romania's entry into the conflict on the Entente side (see Romania during World War I). Mille himself explained the war as a "corrective" answer to Romania's social problems and a "diversion" for the rebellion-minded peasants.^[26] The journal, characterized by American scholar Glenn E. Torrey as one of several "sensationalist newspapers", provided detailed and enthusiastic accounts of the Russian Empire's Brusilov Offensive, which had stabilized the Eastern Front in Romania's proximity, announcing that the "supreme moment" for Romania's intervention had arrived.^[27] This attitude resulted in a clash between Adevărul on one side and Romania's new dominant socialist faction, the Romanian Social Democratic Party (PSDR) and the socialist-controlled labor movement on the other. The newspaper reported the official government position on the bloody confrontations between workers and Romanian Army troops in the city of Galaţi.^[28] Using a style Torrey describes as "inflammatory", Adevărul also attacked PSDR leader Christian Rakovsky, co-founder of the anti-interventionist and internationalist Zimmerwald Movement, accusing him of being an "adventurer" and hireling of the German Empire.^[29] In a 1915 letter to Zimmerwald promoter Leon Trotsky, Rakovsky himself claimed that Mille had been corrupted by Take Ionescu, leader of the pro-Entente Conservative-Democratic Party, and that his newspapers issued propaganda "under the mask of independence".^[30]

Romania eventually signed the 1916 Treaty of Bucharest, committing herself to the Entente cause. Its intervention in the war was nevertheless ill-fated, and resulted in the occupation of Bucharest and much of the surrounding regions by the Central Powers, with the Romanian authorities taking refuge in Iaşi. While Mille himself fled to Iaşi and later Paris, his newspapers were banned by the German authorities and the Sărindar headquarters became home to the German-language official mouthpiece, Bukarester Tageblatt.^[3][9][13] In early 1919, as the Germans lost the war, Mille returned and both Adevărul and Dimineaţa were again in print.^[3][9][13]

[edit] Early interwar years

Adevĕrul logo, used in the interwar period. The subtitle reads: "Evening political newspaper. Appears each day at 3 PM"

Once reestablished, Adevărul became a dominant newspaper of the interwar period and preserved its formative role for popular culture, while being joined its niche by new widely-circulated and left-oriented venues (Cuvântul Liber and Rampa among them).^[31] More serious competition came from its established rival Universul, which reportedly surpassed it in popularity.^[32] In 1920, Mille retired from the position of editor-in-chief and moved on to found Lupta journal, amidst allegations that he had been pressured out by business interests.^[3][13] Adevărul and Dimineaţa were both purchased by Aristide Blank, a Romanian Jewish entrepreneur, National Liberal politician and owner of Editura Cultura Naţională company, who sold the controlling stock to other prominent Jewish businessmen, Emil and Simion Pauker, reactivating the Adevĕrul S. A. holding in the process.^[3][9][13] Mille himself was replaced by Constantin Graur, who held it until 1936.^[9][13][33] Simion and Emil Pauker were, respectively, the father and uncle of Marcel Pauker, later a maverick figure in the outlawed Romanian Communist Party (PCR),^[34][13] and their ethnicity made the two newspapers the preferred targets of attacks from among antisemitic groups.^[35][13] Later that decade, Adevărul was generally sympathetic to the National Peasants' Party, the main political force opposing the National Liberal establishment.^[36]

The journals hosted a new generation of panelists, most of whom were known for their advocacy of left-wing causes. In addition to professional journalists Brănişteanu, Constantin Bacalbaşa, Tudor Teodorescu-Branişte, they included respected novelist Mihail Sadoveanu and debuting essayist Petre Pandrea,^[11] as well as the best-selling fiction author Cezar Petrescu, who was briefly a member of the editorial staff.^[37] Despite the effects of the Great Depression, the new management purchased another building in Sărindar area, tearing it down and replacing it with another palace wing, in reinforced concrete, and unifying the three facades by late 1933.^[9] The extended location, covering some 1,700 m², came to house a rotary printing press which was also in use by the magazine Realitatea Ilustrată, a conference hall, a cafeteria and sleeping quarters for the janitors.^[9]

The post-1920 issues introduced a number of changes in format. It began hosting photojournalistic pieces by Iosif Berman, one of Romania's celebrated photographers (who had made his debut with Dimineaţa in 1913).^[38] The paper began headlining its front page with short column grouping the most important news of the day, grouped together into a single paragraph and often accompanied by satirical comments.^[33] Among the other innovations were regular pieces discussing developments in literature and philosophy, written by two young modernist authors, Benjamin Fondane and Ion Vinea, as well as a regular theater chronicle, contributed by Fagure and Iosif Nădejde.^[11] Vinea's articles illustrated his theories about the need for authenticity, his eclecticism, and his belief that novel was innately inferior to lyrical prose.^[39] Other articles showed his rivalry with his former co-editor of Simbolul magazine, Tristan Tzara, and his stated reserves toward Dada, the radical avant-garde current Tzara had helped establish in Switzerland during the war.^[40] In 1922, Vinea participated in establishing Contimporanul, an influential art magazine and socialist venue which had cordial relations with Adevărul.^[31] Also at the time, the newspaper had a printing contract with Alexandru Tzaran, a socialist activist and entrepreneur, whose company also published avant-garde books.^[41] Adevărul had also resumed its own projects of creating a separate literary venue, and, in 1920, had more success by setting up Adevĕrul Literar şi Artistic, which became on of the prominent cultural journals of its era.^[11]

The newspaper remained involved in cultural debates throughout the following two decades, attracting contributions from various cultural ideologists, among them critics Şerban Cioculescu, Petru Comarnescu, Eugen Lovinescu and Paul Zarifopol, writers Demostene Botez, Eugeniu Botez, Victor Eftimiu, Eugen Jebeleanu, Camil Petrescu and Sadoveanu, and Aromanian cultural activist Nicolae Constantin Batzaria.^[11] Beginning 1928, Cioculescu took over the literary column.^[11] That same year, the journal hosted part of the dispute between Cioculescu and another prominent critic of the period, Perpessicius, the former of whom accused the latter of being too eclectic and generous.^[42] By 1932, it was hosting contributions from George Călinescu, including one which criticized his former disciple Lucian Boz.^[43] In 1937, novelist and chronicler Felix Aderca contributed an article challenging the Lovinescu for having ignored the work of avant-garde founding figure Urmuz.^[44] In parallel, Editura Adevĕrul published some of Romanian literature's best-sellers. These included works by some Romania's most acclaimed of the day, among them Sadoveanu, Călinescu, Eugeniu Botez, Liviu Rebreanu, Gala Galaction.^[11] In addition to these, it printed several other popular works, such as memoirs and essays by Queen Marie of Romania, the successful Titanic Vals play by Tudor Muşatescu, and, after 1934, a number of primary school textbooks.^[11]

[edit] Clashes with the far right and downfall

Both Adevărul and Dimineaţa were noted for their rejection of interwar antisemitism, and for condemning the far right and fascist segment of the political spectrum, at the time illustrated by the National-Christian Defense League (LANC) of academic A. C. Cuza. In 1923, Adevărul publishing house printed a booklet by the leftist figure Emil Socor, who exposed Cuza's recourse to plagiarism.^[45] The same year, the LANC's entire paramilitary wing, including its young leader Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, were arrested by the authorities, who uncovered their plan to murder PNL politicians, the editors of Lupta and Adevărul manager Iacob Rosenthal.^[46] Adevărul later published the results of an investigation by anti-fascist reporter Dinu Dumbravă, who assessed the LANC's implication in the 1925 pogrom of Focşani town, together with the clandestine spread of antisemitic theories through the educational system.^[47]

In parallel, Adevărul took an interest in promoting alternatives to nationalist theories. It thus attempted to mediate the ongoing disputes between Romania and Hungary, an editorial policy was notably illustrated in 1923, when the exiled Hungarian thinker Oszkár Jászi visited Bucharest. In that context, Adevărul published Jászi's interview with essayist Constantin Costa-Foru, which discussed projects for a confederation of Danube states, while criticizing "thoughts of war and sentiments of hatred" expressed by representatives of both nations.^[48] Another Adevărul piece of the time, in which Jászi's ideals were commended as opposites of the Hungarian Regency and the authoritarian Miklós Horthy regime, raised alarm among Hungarian officials, being mentioned in an official report by Hungarian Ambassador Iván Rubido-Zichy.^[49] Later, even as Jászi's arguments came to be viewed with suspicion by many Romanians and openly rejected by members of the Hungarian community in Romania, Adevărul continued to express sympathy to the cause, notably with a 1935 essay by Transylvanian journalist Ion Clopoţel.^[50] In December 1930, leftist sociologist Mihai Ralea, one of the main figures in the Viaţa Românească circle, chose Adevărul as the venue for his essay Răzbunarea noţiunii de democraţie ("Avenging the Notion of Democracy"), which condemned the popular theory according to which democratic regimes were inferior to totalitarian ones.^[51] Adevărul reported with concern on conspiracies against the legitimate government, including officer Victor Precup's attempt to assassinate King Carol II on Good Friday 1934.^[52]

One of the new causes in which the newspaper involved itself after 1918 was birth control, which it supported from an eugenic perspective. This perspective was foremost illustrated by the regular medical column of 1923, signed Doctor Ygrec (the pseudonym of a Jewish practitioner), which proposed both prenuptial certificates and the legalization of abortion.^[53] The issues attracted much interest after Ygrec and his counterpart at Universul, who expressed moral and social objections, debated the matter for an entire month.^[54] While voicing such concerns, Adevărul itself published prejudiced claims, such as a 1928 article by physician George D. Ionăşescu, who portrayed the steady migration of Oltenian natives into Bucharest as a "social danger" which brought with it "promiscuity, squalor and infection", and called for restrictions on internal migration.^[52]

By the mid 1930s, the conflict between Adevărul and the increasingly pro-fascist Universul had degenerated into open conflict. Emil Pauker's newspapers were by then also being targeted by the new fascist movement known as the Iron Guard, led by former LANC member Codreanu: in 1930, one of its editors was shot by a follower of Codreanu, but escaped with his life.^[55] According to the recollections of PCR activist Silviu Brucan, the Iron Guardists, who supported Universul, attacked distributors of Adevărul and Dimineaţa, prompting young communist and socialists to organize themselves into vigilante groups and fight back, which in turn led to a series of street battles.^[13] Beginning 1935, the scandals also involved Sfarmă-Piatră, a virulent far right newspaper headed by Nichifor Crainic and funded by Stelian Popescu, the new editor of Universul.^[56] While engaged in this conflict, Adevărul stood out among local newspapers for supporting the PCR during a 1936 trial of its activists which took place in Craiova, and involved as a co-defendant Simion Pauker's daughter-in-law, Ana Pauker.^[13] According to a claim made by the mainstream politician Constantin Argetoianu, which reported a confidential statement by an Adevărul journalist, this editorial line was exclusively owed to family relationships and imposed by Emil Pauker, who otherwise continued to manifest himself as an anti-communist.^[13]

In summer 1936, the Paukers sold their stock to a consortium of businessmen with National Liberal connections, which was headed by Emanoil Tătărescu, the brother of acting Premier Gheorghe Tătărescu.^[13] Mihail Sadoveanu succeeded Graur as editor-in-chief, while also taking over leadership of Dimineaţa.^[57][13] With this change in management came a new stage in the conflict opposing Adevărul to the far right press. Through the voices of Crainic, Alexandru Gregorian and N. Crevedia, the two extremist journals Porunca Vremii and Sfarmă-Piatră, repeatedly targeted Sadoveanu with antisemitic and antimasonic epithets, accusing him of having become a tool for Jewish interests and, as leader of the Romanian Freemasonry, of promoting occult practices.^[57] The controversy also involved modernist poet Tudor Arghezi, whose writings Sadoveanu defended against charges of "pornography" coming from the nationalist press.^[11]

Adevărul and Dimineaţa, together with Lupta, were suppressed in 1937, when the fascist National Christian Party of Octavian Goga, successor to the LANC and rival of the Iron Guard, took over government. This was primarily an antisemitic measure among several racial discrimination laws adopted with the consent of Carol II, the increasingly authoritarian monarch, and officially credited the notion according to which both venues were "Jewish".^[58] The decision to close down the publications was accompanied by a nationalization of their assets, which reportedly included a large part of Iosif Berman's negatives.^[13] In one of the paper's last issues, Teodorescu-Branişte warned against the identification of democracy "within the limits of constitutional monarchy" with Bolshevism, which he argued had been a traditional tactic of the newspaper's adversaries.^[59] Writing in his diary during World War II, Brănişteanu stated his opinion that the ban coincided with "the emergence of barbarity".^[13] This referred to the bloody competition between Carol and his Iron Guard rivals, to the Goga cabinet's downfall, and to the establishment of a three successive wartime dictatorships: Carol II's National Renaissance Front, the Iron Guard's National Legionary State, and the authoritarian rule of Conducător Ion Antonescu.^[13] Crainic, who served as Minister of Propaganda under both the National Legionary State and Antonescu, took pride in his own campaign against "Judaism" in the press, and, speaking at the 1941 anniversary of his tribune Gândirea, referred to Goga's 1937 action against Adevărul and the others as a "splendid act of justice".^[60]

[edit] 1946 recovery and communist censorship

Both Adevărul and Dimineaţa were restored on April 13, 1946, two years since the August 1944 Coup ended Romania's alliance with Nazi Germany by bringing down Antonescu. The new editorial staff was led by the aging newspaperman Brănişteanu and the new collective owner was the joint stock company Sărindar S. A.^[33] The daily did not have its headquarters in Sărindar (which was allocated to the Luceafărul Printing House),^[9] but remained in the same general area, on Matei Millo Street and later on Brezoianu Street.^[33] In the first issue of its new series, Adevărul carried Brănişteanu's promise of pursuing the same path as Mille, and was accompanied by a reprint of Mille's political testament.^[33] Brănişteanu's article stated: "We did not and will not belong to any person, to any government, to any party."^[33] The series coincided with a spell of pluralism and, at the same time, the Soviet Union's occupation of Romania and the country's rapid communization, leading up to the establishment of a communist regime. Brănişteanu noted these developments in his debut editorial of 1946: "We ought to be blind not to have admitted that, in these new times, new men must step and do step to the leadership. We do not shy away from saying that, in general lines, our views meet with those of socialist democracy, for the preparation of which we have been struggling our entire lives and which is about to be set up here, as well as in most parts of the European continent, after being fulfilled in Russia."^[33]

Barbu Brănişteanu died in December 1947, just days before the Kingdom was replaced with a pro-Soviet people's republic in which the dominant force was the PCR.^[61][33] The journal celebrated the political transition, publishing the official communique proclaiming the republic, and commenting on it: "A new face of Romanian history has begun [sic] yesterday. What follows is the Romanian state, which today, as well as tomorrow, will require everyone's disciplined and concentrated work."^[61] Honored with a front-page obituary,^[61][33] Brănişteanu was succeeded by H. Soreanu, who led the journal for the following two years.^[33]

In stages after that date, Adevărul was affected by communist censorship. Its content grew more politicized, offering praise to Soviet and Communist party initiatives such as the five-year plans, the encouragement and spread of atheism, and the promotion of Russian literature.^[33] Nevertheless, it continued to publish more traditional articles, including reportage pieces by F. Brunea-Fox and regular pieces by poet Demostene Botez, as well as the regular columns Carnetul nostru ("Our Notebook") Cronica evenimentelor externe ("The Chronicle of Foreign Events"), Cronica muzicală ("The Musical Chronicle"), Glose politice ("Political Glosses"), Ultima oră ("Latest News"), and the cartoon section Chestia zilei ("The Daily Issue").^[33] Another satirical section, titled Tablete ("Tablets") and contributed by Tudor Arghezi, existed between 1947 and 1948, its publication ending when Arghezi was banned after being singled out for his "decadent" poetry by Sorin Toma's ideological column in the main communist mouthpiece, Scînteia (see Socialist realism in Romania).^[11]

In early 1951, at a time when the communist regime closed down all autonomous press venues, Adevărul was itself taken out of print. It announced the matter to its readers on March 31, 1951, in its final 18,039th issue, stating: "the working class has set up a new press, emerging from the new development of society: a press for the masses, read and written by millions. [It] expresses the tendencies and higher level of socialist culture; it debates on a daily basis the problems of ideology, of social and political theory, of science and technology, in connection with the preoccupations, the struggles and the victories in the field of labor, intertwined with the vast issues posed by the effort of socialist construction. The mission of Adevĕrul newspaper is over."^[33] Indication of this being an unexpected occurrence was provided by the fact that Adevărul had not canceled subscriptions in advance.^[33]

[edit] 1989 reestablishment and support for the FSN

A journal with the name Adevărul was again set up in the immediate aftermath of the 1989 Revolution, which had toppled the 50-year old communist regime and its single-party system. The publication, which is housed by Casa Presei Libere, is often described as a direct successor to the PCR organ Scînteia (rival of the 1940s Adevărul).^{[62][63][64][65][66]} Two intermediary issues were published during the actual revolutionary events, on December 23 and 24 respectively, under the title Scînteia Poporului ("The People's Spark"), which, while still displaying the old communist symbolism, published appeals issued by the provisional post-communist leadership forum, the National Salvation Front (FSN).^[67] As one of its first measures, the new editorial board dismissed members of the staff who were discredited for having openly supported the last communist ruler, Nicolae Ceauşescu, replacing them with journalists sympathetic to the FSN.^[68] Soon after Ceauşescu's execution, the journal began serializing Red Horizons, a volume of recollections exposing the defunct regime, authored by Ion Mihai Pacepa, a defector and former spy chief.^[63]

Edited after its resurgence by the pro-FSN poet and translator Darie Novăceanu,^[69][64] Adevărul became the dominant left-wing newspaper of post-communist Romania. In parallel, Dimineaţa was itself revived, and, although independent from Adevărul, was also a FSN mouthpiece.^[70] Their main right-wing rival was another former Communist Party venue, România Liberă, which openly reproached on the FSN that it was monopolizing power, becoming itself a platform for liberalism and pluralism.^[71] Reflecting back on the early 1990s, Southampton Institute researcher David Berry argued: "the ideological forces associated with the previous Stalinist regime were pitted against a much smaller and disparate oppositional group. This latter group was associated with România Liberă that loosely represented the voice of liberalism and [...] clearly lost the war. This was a battle of ideas and the old forces of Romanian communism used the new press framework, through Adevărul, to discredit opposition forces."^[72] In 1990, both papers reputedly sold around 1 million copies each day,^[73][64] a pattern attributed to "news deprivation" under communism, and believed by Berry to be "a phenomenal figure in comparison to any leading Western nation".^[74]

In this context, Adevărul stood out for promoting nationalist, populist and authoritarian concepts, which Berry has associated with the survival of previous national communist themes in FSN discourse.^[75] Such theses acquired particularly controversial representations during the violent Târgu Mureş riots of March 1990. Backing the official view according to which the ethnic Hungarian community was organizing itself in separatist struggle, it dedicated space to articles targeting the opposition Democratic Union of Hungarians (UDMR). Initially, Berry notes, the journal reported claims of extremist Hungarians in Transylvania committing vandalism against national monuments while acknowledging that the UDMR was not endorsing such acts, but slowly became a tribune for encouraging ethnic Romanians to take action, exclusively presenting its public with politicized and unmitigated information provided by the official agency Rompres and by the Romanian ultra-nationalist group Vatra Românească.^[76] Its editorials, often based on rumors, included negative portrayals of Hungarians, methods described by Berry as "extremely xenophobic", "unethical" and forms of "political manipulation".^[77]

Adevărul displayed constant hostility toward the Golaniad protests in Bucharest, which ranged for much of early 1990, and expressed praise for the Mineriad of June 13-15, 1990, during which miners from the Jiu Valley, instigated by the official discourse, entered Bucharest and put a violent stop to the opposition's demonstrations. The journal repeatedly called for a Romanian Police operation to forcefully evict the demonstrators, whom it identified with "filth" and "promiscuity".^[78] It also depicted the Golaniad as a major conspiracy against legitimate government, directed by neofascist and Iron Guard groups, and amounting to a coup d'état.^[79][69] Together with the FSN's Azi, it publicized news of the June 13 events, during which pro-government workers at the IMGB heavy machinery works attempted to force out the crowds, describing their actions as justified by supposed student violence against Police forces.^[80] After the protesters' return and during the subsequent miner-led clampdown, which it portrayed as a peaceful operation, Adevărul was among the Casa Presei Libere publications left untouched by the miners' raid on the building.^[81] During the following days, it published material praising the miners for reestablishing order,^[82] while alleging that "their presence was absolutely necessary to annihilate the violence of extremist forces, and among which many intellectuals and a lot of journalists felt [...] good."^[83] It also popularized false rumors according to which, during their attacks on the opposition National Peasant and National Liberal party headquarters, the miners had uncovered weapons, counterfeit money and illegal drugs.^[84] In 2005, Andrei Badin, a staff writer for Evenimentul Zilei, the main rival publication of Adevărul, revisited the context, accusing main editor Novăceanu, alongside his employee Sergiu Andon (future Conservative Party politician) and others, of having been responsible for a "diversionary campaign" in support of the FSN.^[69] He also quotes controversial pro-FSN statements made in that context by two of the newspaper's future editors, Cristian Tudor Popescu and Corina Drăgotescu.^[69]

Radical nationalism was observed in several Adevărul articles throughout the FSN period. In one piece of March 22, days after the main Hungarian-Romanian clashes, writer Romulus Vulpescu described the danger of "irredentism" and "Horthyism", alleging that local Hungarians had assassinated several Romanian peasants.^[85] Vulpescu and other contributors repeatedly made unverifiable claims according to which Hungary was directly involved in stirring resentments, allegations also made by the state-controlled television network.^[86] According to Romanian-born historian Radu Ioanid, in 1990-1991 Adevărul and its opponent Dreptatea of the anti-FSN National Peasants' Party both "joined the anti-Semitic barrage" of the period, a trend he believes was instigated by the publications of Corneliu Vadim Tudor, Iosif Constantin Drăgan and Eugen Barbu (all of them affiliated with România Mare magazine).^[87] Ioanid singled out Adevărul and its collaborator Cristian Tudor Popescu, who, during the July 1991 commemoration of the Iaşi pogrom, attacked writer Elie Wiesel and other Holocaust researchers for having evidenced Ion Antonescu's complicity in extermination.^[88] In the early 1990s, Adevărul also stood out for its intense republicanism which opposed the return of communist-deposed King Michael I, and published polemical pieces such as the Fir-ai al naibii, majestate ("Curse You, Your Majesty", written by Andon).^[69][64][89]

[edit] The privatization years

A scandal surfaced in spring 1991, when Adevărul was caught up in the first wave of privatization, following a decision of the Petre Roman FSN cabinet. A conflict reportedly opposed Novăceanu to Popescu: the latter suspected a secret understanding between Roman and the journal's leadership, providing for a facade privatization and transferring financial control to FSN politicians.^[64] The Scînteia patrimony was eventually divided between its successor and the state.^[64] In parallel, seeking to consolidate their publications' independence, the writing staff set up a joint stock company, Adevărul Holding.^[90][64][65] Known initially as SC Adevărul SA, it had its initial public offering distributed through the "MEBO method" of emplyee buyouts.^[64][91] As a result, the journalists owned 60% and other employees the other 40%,^[64] with a clause forbidding them from selling to outside investors (in effect until 2002).^[91] Subsequent trading within the holding and seasoned equity offerings provided the editorial staff with a controlling stock of approx. 30%.^[64] As part of its business profile, the post-privatization Adevărul also earned criticism for not differentiating between articles and commercial content, publishing covert advertisements as opinion pieces.^[64][92] Also at that stage, allegations surfaced that, through a firm known as SC Colosal Import-Export, members of the editorial staff, including Andon, Viorel Sălăgean and Dumitru Tinu, were handling all the larger advertising revenues.^[64]

Occasionally, nationalist claims produced by Adevărul parted with the policies of FSN's Social Democratic (PSD) successors, particularly in matters relating to social issues and Romania's economy. In June 1993, the journal attached the PSD's Nicolae Văcăroiu cabinet for its privatization measures, claiming that the sale of the Petromin shipping firm to Greek investors was done "at a pittance", and calling for the executive to resign.^[93] This campaign, British political scientist Judy Batt notes, had a "xenophobic tinge", and its appeal "has shaken confidence in the government and eroded its capacity for action."^[93] After the post-Revolution authorities announced their intention to join the European Union and accepted a monitoring process, the newspaper hosted the first in a long series of Euroskeptic pieces, which generally objected to outside intervention, particularly in the area of human rights, and were often signed by columnists Popescu and Bogdan Chireac.^[94] British academic and observer Tom Gallagher attributes this attitude to claims of "injured patriotism".^[95] Also during Văcăroiu's term, in early 1996, Adevărul was noted for criticizing local non-governmental organizations promoting women's rights, alleging that, although financed by the European Union's Phare fund, they only functioned on paper (an attitude which itself earned criticism for sexism).^[96]

A political scandal touched Adevărul some time after the 1996 legislative election, when the Social Democrats' rivals from the Democratic Convention, Democratic Party and other opposition groups formed government. This came after the new Foreign Minister, Adrian Severin, publicly stated being in possession of a list comprising the names of several leading Romanian journalists who were agents of the Russian Federal Security Service.^[97][98] Even though Severin's failure to evidence the claim resulted in his resignation, the list fueled much speculation, including rumors that Dumitru Tinu, by then one of the main Adevărul editors, was one of the people in question.^[97][98] The dispute prolonged itself over the following decade, particularly after Tinu's name was again used by President Emil Constantinescu and former Foreign Intelligence Service director Ioan Talpeş in their recollections of the Severin incident.^[98] A separate controversy of the time involved Cristian Tudor Popescu, criticized for his Adevărul articles which, claiming freedom of thought as their motivation, supported the cause of convicted French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy.^[99]

[edit] Late 1990s emancipation

Various commentators have noted a rise in the newspaper's informative quality later in the 1990s. Among them is British politician and MEP Emma Nicholson, who followed Romania's political scene throughout the decade. She singled out Adevărul and Romania's other major central daily, Evenimentul Zilei, as "high quality publications".^[100] Writing in 2002, Romanian media researcher Alex Ulmanu rated Adevărul "the most successful, and arguably the best Romanian daily".^[101] Romanian sociologist and political commentator Marian Petcu sees its enduring popularity as the consequence of a "head start", with Adevărul having inherited from Scînteia "the facilities, the subscribers, the raw materials, the headquarters, the superstructure, the network of local correspondents etc."^[65] He also notes that the newer publication had produced a "less warlike and less anti-communist" discourse than those of other dailies, and therefore appealing to a wider audience.^[65] By 2004, Petcu argues, Adevărul maintained a "balance between a reconciliatory but well documented discourse, on the one hand, and, on the other, the observance of journalistic norms and resistance to the temptation to make compromises."^[65]

According to surveys carried out around 2004, the paper was being perceived as the most credible title.^[65] Its circulation reached a reported 150,000 copies a day, making it one of at most four local dailies to print more than 100,000, and maintaining its lead over all local newspapers, directly above Evenimentul Zilei and Libertatea.^[101] Other data for 2003 places that number at approx. 200,000, roughly equal to that of Evenimentul Zilei, and ranking above Libertatea and Cotidianul (with 140,000 and 120,000 copies respectively).^[102] According to Evenimentul Zilei, the circulation of Adevărul actually dropped from 200,000 in 1998-2000 to 100,000 in the post-2001 era,^[64] whereas external auditors revealed that, in 2003, it was the fifth most-read newspaper (after Libertatea, Evenimentul Zilei, Pro Sport and Gazeta Sporturilor).^[91] Alongside Evenimentul Zilei and Pro Sport, Adevărul was also one of the first journals to take an interest in putting out an online edition and adopting innovations in web design, making its site the third most popular of its kind in 2002 (the year of its relaunch).^[101]

Both Tinu and Popescu helped consolidate their publication's reputation through their numerous television appearances, coming to be seen as leaders of opinion.^[64] According to Petcu, the public's confidence was what made the journal become "autonomous from the political power",^[65] while Nicholson attributes such progress to Popescu, whom she sees as "a journalistic icon".^[103] At the end of the transition, Petcu assessed the new Adevărul agenda as one in favor of social justice, social security and "fast privatization that would avoid massive unemployment".^[65] At the time, the paper's panelists also threw their support behind European integration, a change in political orientation illustrated by Chireac's talk show on Pro TV station, titled Pro Vest ("Pro West").^[104] In 2003, Popescu was a co-founder and, after România Liberă editor Petre Mihai Băcanu withdrew from the race, first president of the Romanian Press Club, a professional association whose mission was setting ethical standards in journalism.^[105]

Despite such gestures, the paper continued to withstand accusations that it was itself unprofessional. Ulmanu argued that both Adevărul and its smaller competitor Curentul were examples of press striving to be considered "high quality", but noted: "However, one can still find biased, unprofessional or sensationalist reporting in these papers."^[101] Disputes also surround its political agenda of the 2000-2004 period. Like the other mainstream publications, Adevărul supported the PSD-backed Ion Iliescu in the presidential election runoff of late 2000, against the ultra-nationalist rival of the Greater Romania Party, Corneliu Vadim Tudor.^[106] In this context, it notably published a piece questioning Tudor's self-identification as a firm adherent of Romanian Orthodoxy, suggesting that he presented himself to foreigners as a Baptist Union adherent.^[106] Opinions vary about the journal's relationship with the PSD after the 2000 legislative election, which consecrated the party's return in government: while political scientist Vladimir Tismăneanu emphasizes its criticism of the Adrian Năstase cabinet,^[107] journalist and academic Manuela Preoteasa discusses PSD's "pressure on the media", and includes Adevărul among venues which, "apparently critical toward PSD [...] avoided criticizing some of the party leaders".^[92] In Marian Petcu's view, the journal evidenced "a discourse stressing the need for prudence and balance, alternated with criticism of the political power whenever the latter failed to take firm decisions."^[65]

[edit] Post-2000 controversies and changes in management

Adevărul also consolidated financial transparency, when the new editorial board, extended to include newcomers Chireac, Lelia Munteanu and Adrian Ursu, took over the role of supervisor in matters of advertising.^[64] In 2001-2003, Tinu purchased most stock owned by his colleagues, and came to own over 70% of the total shares, of which some 10% were purchased from Popescu in exchange for 140,000 United States dollars.^[64] Suspicions arose that Tinu was being secretly financed in this effort by the Jordanian businessman Fathi Taher, already known for purchasing much advertisement space in Adevărul during the mid 1990s, and receiving additional support from PSD politician and entrepreneur Viorel Hrebenciuc.^[64] According to a 2003 analysis in Ziarul Financiar, Adevărul was considered for purchase by the French group Hachette, and later by a Polish conglomerate.^[91]

In 2003, Tinu died in a car crash. The circumstances of his death, especially the technical details and the alleged financial benefits for third-parties, raised much speculation that he had been in fact murdered.^[64][98] His estate, including his majority stock, was inherited by his daughter, Ana-Maria, but her ownership was contested by the Iucinu family (his secret mistress and her son by Tinu).^[64] Their interests were defended in court by former panelist Andon, owner of some 2% of the stock.^[64] The editorial board's opposition to the administrative reshuffling proposed by Ana-Maria Tinu also created a lengthy conflict, and prevented her from assuming administrative control of the paper.^[64] It was alleged that, at the time of his death, Tinu was considering rebranding and restructuring,^[91] and that, in 2004, the newspaper's profits were only 9% of its total income.^[64]

A major crisis took place in 2005, when Popescu resigned from the board and was followed by 50 of his colleagues, all of whom set up a new daily, Gândul.^[103] In one of his last Adevărul pieces, titled Atacul guzganului rozaliu ("The Attack of the Pink Rat"), Popescu accused Hrebenciuc of having imposed his control on the newspaper during the local elections of 2004, when he allegedly pressured journalists not to criticize the PSD Mayor of Bacău, Dumitru Sechelariu.^[108] Also according to Popescu, Hrebenciuc had urged him and his colleagues to feature more negative and less positive coverage of the PSD rival and Democratic Party candidate Traian Băsescu during the presidential suffrage of November 2004.^[108] Atacul guzganului rozaliu also alleged that Ana-Maria Tinu had an understanding with the PSD politician, and her rebranding of Adevărul was Hrebenciuc's attempt to undermine its political independence.^[108]

Although Gândul attracted a large following during a number of months, Adevărul survived the shock, but is believed to have lost a significant portion of its traditional public.^[103] A similar crisis took had affected its rival Evenimentul Zilei in 2004, when the policies of new owners Ringier forced the resignation of editor Cornel Nistorescu and the migration of many staff members toward Cotidianul.^[103] In 2006, Ana-Maria Tinu sold her share of Adevărul Holding to one of Romania's richest entrepreneurs and National Liberal politician Dinu Patriciu, a move hotly contested by Tinu's son Andrei Iucinu, who looked set to gain a third of the stock and trademark ownership upon the end of a trial.^[109] Patriciu's decisions, including his appointment of a new managerial team, were resisted by Corina Drăgotescu, who resigned and left the newspaper in November 2006.^[110] External auditors reported that, between summer 2006 and summer 2007, at a moment linked by American scholar Peter Gross with a rise in influence for the major market players and a loss of overall credibility, Adevărul was the only newspaper not to have incurred a drastic loss in readership (Gândul itself lost an estimated 26,000).^[111] According to data made available by the Romanian Audit Bureau of Circulations, the newspaper's circulation for 2008 ranged between a minimum monthly average of 37,248 copies in January and a maximum one of 109,442 in December.^[112] However, according to a 2009 article in its rival newspaper Financiarul, Adevărul was being neglected by Patriciu, who invested more in the holding (allegedly in hopes of undermining a trademark which he risked losing, while elevating the publications not affected by Iucinu's claim).^[109]

Despite the changes in attitude and management, some of the post-2000 editions of Adevărul remained controversial for their nationalist claims. This was primarily the case of statements it made in regard to the Romani minority, over which it has been repeatedly accused of antiziganism. In early 2002, the journal reacted strongly against an advertisement for a soccer match between the Romanian squad and the French national team, where the former was being portrayed as a violinist.^[113] Adevărul saw this as an attempt to insult Romanians by associating them with Romani music, concluding: "Our French 'brothers' never stop offending us, and they seem to enjoy treating us like gypsies".^[113] A November 2008 article, which claimed to be based on a reportage piece first published in El País, depicted Romani Romanians as a leading demographic group within Madrid's organized crime networks.^[114][115] The article was condemned by civil society observers, who uncovered that Adevărul had modified and editorialized the original article, which actually spoke of the Romanian immigrant population, without any mention of ethnicity.^[114][115]

Colecţia Adevărul, the post-2008 book collection issued by Adevărul has itself been the subject of controversies. Two trials were opened on charges of plagiarism, after the collection issued works by Leo Tolstoy and Vintilă Corbul, allegedly without respecting the authorship rights of original translators.^[116] Another such conflict was sparked in April 2009, opposing Colecţia Adevărul to Biblioteca pentru toţi ("Everyman's Library") similar book series issued in tandem by the rival daily Jurnalul Naţional and Editura Litera company. This came after Adevărul reprinted George Călinescu's Enigma Otiliei ahead of Biblioteca pentru toţi, despite the latter having earlier announced its intention to publish the volume, and reportedly without obtaining permission from copyright holders.^{[117][118][116]} The Romanian Academy's George Călinescu Institute, which owns the rights to Călinescu's books, joined Editura Litera in initiating a lawsuit against Adevărul.^[118] In its first reply to the allegations, Adevărul accused Jurnalul Naţional itself of having taken over the Biblioteca pentru toţi trademark, previously owned by Editura Minerva, without obtaining the legal rights to its use.^[117][116] Its representatives also spoke out against Antena 1, a television station which, like Jurnalul Naţional, is owned by Intact Group, accusing it of incorrectly reporting on the issue.^[117]

[edit] Notes

[edit] References

• Final Report of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania, Polirom, Iaşi, 2004. ISBN 973-681-989-2
• Mihnea Berindei, Ariadna Combes, Anne Planche, 13-15 iunie 1990. Realitatea unei puteri neocomuniste, Humanitas, Bucharest, 2006. ISBN 973-50-1160-3
• David Berry, The Romanian Mass Media and Cultural Development, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, 2004. ISBN 0-7546-1069-1
• Maria Bucur, Eugenics and Modernization in Interwar Romania, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 2002. ISBN 0-8229-4172-4
• Paul Cernat, Avangarda românească şi complexul periferiei: primul val, Cartea Românească, Bucharest, 2007. ISBN 978-973-23-1911-6
• Charles Upson Clark, United Roumania, Ayer Publishing, Manchester, New Hampshire, 1971. ISBN 0-405-02741-9
• Tom Gallagher, "Nationalism and Romanian Political Culture in the 1990s", in Duncan Light, David Phinnemore (eds.), Post-Communist Romania: Coming to Terms with Transition, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke & New York, 2001, p.104-124. ISBN 0-333-79187-8
• Radu Ioanid, "Romania", in David S. Wyman, Charles H. Rosenzveig (eds.), The World Reacts to the Holocaust, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore & London, 1996, p.225-252. ISBN 0-8018-4969-1
• György Litván, A Twentieth-century Prophet: Oscar Jászi, 1875-1957, Central European University Press, Budapest, 2006. ISBN 963-7326-42-1
• Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, "Civil Society and the Media in Romania", in David Phinnemore (ed.), The EU and Romania: Accession and Beyond, Federal Trust for Education and Research & I.B. Tauris, London, 2006, p.64-77. ISBN 1-903403-78-2
• Z. Ornea, Anii treizeci. Extrema dreaptă românească, Editura Fundaţiei Culturale Române, Bucharest, 1995. ISBN 973-9155-43-X
• Tom Sandqvist, Dada East. The Romanians of Cabaret Voltaire, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, 2006. ISBN 0-262-19507-0
• Vladimir Tismăneanu, Stalinism pentru eternitate, Polirom, Iaşi, 2005. ISBN 973-681-899-3
• Glenn E. Torrey, "Rumania's Decision to Intervene: Brătianu and the Entente, June-July 1916", in Keith Hitchins (ed.), Romanian Studies. Vol. 2, 1971-1972, Brill Publishers, Leiden, 1973, p.3-29. ISBN 90-04-03639-3
• Francisco Veiga, Istoria Gărzii de Fier, 1919-1941: Mistica ultranaţionalismului, Humanitas, Bucharest, 1993. ISBN 973-28-0392-4

[edit] External links

• (Italian) "Adevărul", entry in Cronologia della letteratura rumena moderna (1780-1914) database, at the University of Florence's Department of Neo-Latin Languages and Literatures