Adevărul

Type	Daily newspaper
Format	Compact
Owner	Adevarul Holding
Editor-in-chief	Andreea Traicu
Editor	Adevărul Holding
Staff writers	18[1]
Founded	1871 (reestablished 1888, 1919, 1946, 1989)
Headquarters	21 Fabrica de Glucoză Street,Sector 2
City	Bucharest
Country	Romania
ISSN	1016-7587
Website	adevarul.ro
Media of Romania List of newspapers

Adevărul (Romanian pronunciation:[adeˈvərul]; meaning "The Truth", formerly spelledAdevĕrul) is a Romaniandaily newspaper, based inBucharest. Founded inIași, in 1871, and reestablished in 1888, in Bucharest, it was the mainleft-wing press venue to be published during theRomanian Kingdom's existence, adopting an independent pro-democratic position, advocatingland reform, and demandinguniversal suffrage. Under its successive editorsAlexandru Beldiman andConstantin Mille, it became noted for its virulent criticism ofKingCarol I. This stance developed into arepublican andsocialist agenda, which madeAdevărul clash with the Kingdom's authorities on several occasions. As innovative publications which set up several local and international records during the early 20th century,Adevărul and its sister dailyDimineața competed for the top position with theright-wingUniversul before and throughout theinterwar period. In 1920,Adevărul also began publishing its prestigious cultural supplement,Adevărul Literar și Artistic. By the 1930s, theiranti-fascism and theJewish ethnicity of their new owners madeAdevărul andDimineața the targets of negative campaigns in thefar right press, and theantisemiticOctavian Goga cabinet banned both upon obtaining power in 1937.Adevărul was revived byBarbu Brănișteanu afterWorld War II, but was targeted byCommunist Romania'scensorship apparatus and again closed down in 1951.

A newspaper of the same name was set up in 1989, just days after theRomanian Revolution, replacingScînteia, organ of the defunctRomanian Communist Party. Initially a supporter of the dominantNational Salvation Front, it adopted a controversial position, being much criticized for producingpopulist and radicalnationalist messages and for supporting the violentMineriad of 1990. Under editorsDumitru Tinu andCristian Tudor Popescu, when it reasserted its independence as asocially conservative venue and was fullyprivatized,Adevărul became one of the most popular and trusted press venues. Nevertheless, it 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 newspaperGândul. As of 2006,Adevărul had been the property ofDinu Patriciu, a prominent Romanian businessman and politician.

Adevărul is the maintrademark ofAdevărul Holding, a company owned by Cristian Burci. The main newspaper itself is edited by editor-in-chiefDan Marinescu and several deputy editors (Liviu Avram,Adina Stan,Andrei Velea and others).^[1]

Also part of the holding are a number of other publications:

• Dilema Veche, a cultural magazine
• Historia [ro] popular history magazine
• Click!, atabloid
• Click! pentru femei ('Click! for Women') magazine
• Click! Sănătate ('Click! Health') magazine
• Click! Poftă bună! ('Click! Bon Appetit!') magazine
• OK! magazine.

In December 2010, Adevărul Holding also launched a sister version of its title asset, published in neighboringMoldova asAdevărul Moldova.^[2]

The Romanian newspaper had special pages of regional content, one each forBucharest,Transylvania,Moldavia, the western areas ofBanat andCrișana, and the southern areas ofWallachia andNorthern Dobruja. It also hosts columns about the larger sections ofRomanian diaspora in Europe, those inSpain andItaly.Adevărul publishes several supplements. In addition toAdevărul Literar și Artistic (formerly a separate magazine, now issued as a culture supplement which is issued on Wednesdays), it publishes five others: on Mondays, the sports magazineAntifotbal ("Anti-football"), which focuses on the traditionally less-covered areas of theRomanian sports scene; on Tuesdays,Adevărul Expert Imobiliar ("Real Estate Expert"); on Thursdays,Adevărul Sănătate ("Health"), a health and lifestyle magazine; on Fridays, aTV guide,Adevărul Ghid TV, followed on Sundays by the entertainment sectionMagazin de Duminică ("Sunday Magazine"). In October 2008,Adevărul also launchedAdevărul de Seară ("Evening Adevărul"), afree daily newspaper and evening edition, which was closed down in May 2011.^[3]

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

A newspaper by the nameAdevĕrulŭ (pronounced the same asAdevărul, but following versions of theRomanian alphabet which emphasizedetymology, in this case from theLatin wordveritas) was founded on December 15, 1871.^[4] The weekly was owned byAlexandru Beldiman, a formerPolice commander, and published inIași, the former capital ofMoldavia. Beldiman directed the newspaper in opposition to Romania's newDomnitor, theGerman princeCarol of Hohenzollern, calling for the restoration of his deposed and exiled predecessor, the Moldavian-bornAlexandru Ioan Cuza.^[4] Its articles against the new monarch soon after resulted in Beldiman's indictment fordefamation and attack on the1866 Constitution.^[4] He was eventuallyacquitted, but the journal ceased publication with its 13th issue (April 1872).^[4]

Adevărul reemerged as a daily on August 15, 1888, seven years after the proclamation of aRomanian Kingdom. It was then known asAdevĕrul, which also reflected theveritas origin, and theĕ, although obsolete by the early 20th century, was kept as a distinctive sign by all the paper's owners until 1951.^[4][5] Initially financed by a printer, who agreed to advance it a short-term credit,^[6] the new gazette was co-founded by Alexandru Beldiman andAlexandru Al. Ioan, the son of formerDomnitor Cuza, and was again noted for its radical and often irreverent critique of newly crownedKing Carol and the "foreign dynasty".^[4][5][7][8] The small editorial team included writerGrigore Ventura and his son Constantin, as well as, after a while, political columnist I. Hussar.^[7] In December 1888, it changed its format, from a No. 6 to a No. 10 inpaper size, while abandoning the initial, calligraphed logo, in favor of a standardserif which it used until 1951.^[7]

Beldiman's hostility to the monarchy was reflected in one of the 15 objectives set by the second series' first issue, wherebyAdevărul called for anelective monarchy with magistratures reserved for locals,^[7] and evident in having chosen for the paper'smotto a quote from poetVasile 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).^[4][5][7][9] The journalists called Carol's accession to the throne by the1866 plebiscite "an undignified comedy",^[8] refused tocapitalize references toM. S. Regele ("H[is] M[ajesty] the King"),^[4] and referred to May 10, the national celebration of the Kingdom, as a "national day of mourning".^[4][10] In December 1888, they also published a list of Carol's alleged attacks on Romanian dignity.^[11] 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.^[10] Reportedly, its circulation peaked on May 10 of each year, from some 5,000 to some 25,000 or 30,000 copies.^[4][12]Adevărul also debated with the German newspapersNorddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung andKölnische Zeitung, who worried that Romania's anti-dynasticists plotted Carol's murder, assuring them that the actual battle was political, "in broad daylight, on the wide path of public opinion."^[8] In 1891, the paper called for boycotting Carol's 25th anniversary on the throne.^[8]

Located inBucharest, the newAdevărul had its original headquarters inCalea Victoriei (Doamnei Street, Nouă Street, Brătianu Boulevard, and Enei Street).^[7][13] It later moved to a building near theNational Bank and theVilacrosse Passage, where it occupied just several rooms (leading its staff to repeatedly complain about the lack of space).^[5][13][14] A serious crisis occurred during 1892, when, having omitted to register histrademark, Beldiman was confronted with the appearance of a competingAdevărul, published by his former associate Toma Basilescu, who had been the original gazette's administrator for the previous year.^[10] In June 1892, anarbitral tribunal decided in favor of Beldiman, ordering Basilescu to close down his paper.^[10]

With time, the newspaper had moved from advocating King Carol's replacement with a local ruler to supportingrepublicanism.^[8] 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 ofCrown Prince Ferdinand toMarie of Edinburgh.^[8] In addition,Adevărul began militating for a number of major social and political causes, which it perceived as essential todemocracy. In its 15 points of 1888, it notably demandeduniversal suffrage to replace thecensus method enshrined in the1866 Constitution,unicameralism through a disestablishment of theSenate, aland reform to replaceleasehold estates,self-governance at a local level,progressive taxation, Sunday rest for employees, universalconscription instead of a permanentunder arms force,women's rights,emancipation forRomanian Jews.^[7] It embraced the cause ofRomanians living outside theOld Kingdom, particularly those inAustro-Hungarian-ruledTransylvania,^[7][8] while calling for Romania to separate itself from its commitment to theTriple Alliance, and advocating aBalkan Federation to include Romania.^[7]

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 ofcorruption.^[8] It depicted revolt as legitimate, and campaigned in favor ofamnesty for prisoners taken after the 1888 peasant riots.^[8] The paper supportededucational reforms in the countryside, calling attention to the specific issues faced by rural teachers, but also campaigned against their use ofcorporal punishment as a method of maintainingschool discipline.^[8] In similar vein,Adevărul focused on cases of abuse within theRomanian Army, documenting cases where soldiers were being illegally used asindentured servants, noting the unsanitary conditions which accounted for an unusually high rate of severeconjunctivitis, and condemning officers for regularly beating their subordinates.^[8] As part of the latter campaign, it focused on Crown Prince Ferdinand, who was tasked with instructing abattalion and is said to have slapped a soldier for not performing the proper moves.^[8]Adevărul investigated numerous other excesses of authority, and on several occasions formed special investigative commissions of reporters who followed suspicions of judicial error.^[8] It also spoke out in favor of Jewish emancipation, while theorizing a difference between the minority "exploiting Jews" and anassimilable Jewish majority.^[8]

Under Beldiman, the newspaper took pride in stating its independence, by taking distance from thetwo dominant parties, theConservatives and theNational Liberal Party, who either supported or tolerated King Carol.^[4] This stance reputedly earned the publication an unusual status: anecdotes have it that Conservative leaderLascăr Catargiu would only readAdevărul while in the opposition, and that its columnist Albert Honigman was the first and for long time only journalist allowed into theupper class society atCasa Capșa restaurant.^[14] In February 1889, the ConservativePremierTheodor Rosetti reputedly tried to silenceAdevărul by having its distributors arrested.^[10] 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 Romanianzincographers to the point where the plates had to be created abroad.^[6] In April 1893, the Catargiu cabinet organized a clampdown on the newspaper: it arrested its editorEduard Dioghenide (who was sentenced to a year in prison on charges ofsedition) and, profiting from the non-emancipated status of Romanian Jews, it expelled its Jewish contributors I. Hussar and Carol Schulder.^[10] Another incident occurred during May of the following year, when the paper's headquarters were attacked by riotingUniversity of Bucharest students, who were reportedly outraged by an article critical of their behavior, but also believed to have been instigated by the Conservative executive'sGendarmerie.^[10]

In parallel,Adevărul took steps to establishing its reputation as anewspaper of record. A local first was established in June 1894, whenAdevărul hosted the first foreign correspondence article received by a Romanian periodical: a telegram sent by theFrenchsocialist newspapermanVictor Jaclard, discussing the assassination ofSadi Carnot and the accession ofJean Casimir-Perier to the office ofPresident.^[6]Adevărul also broke ground by publishing a plate portrait of Casimir-Perier only a day after his rise to prominence.^[6] Early on, the newspaper also had a cultural agenda, striving to promoteRomanian 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."^[15] Initially,Adevărul dedicated its Sunday issue to literary contributions, receiving such pieces fromGeorge Coșbuc,Haralamb Lecca, Ioan N. Roman, and the adolescent poetȘtefan Octavian Iosif.^[15]

By 1893, the gazette's panel came to include several leading activists of the newly createdRomanian Social Democratic Workers' Party (PSDMR), among themConstantin Mille and brothersAnton andIoan Bacalbașa.^[5][14] Mille was an innovator, seen by his contemporaries as a "father of modern Romanian journalism" (a title carved on his tombstone inBellu cemetery).^[5] Although brief, Anton Bacalbașa's stay also left a distinct mark onAdevărul: in 1893, he authored what is supposedly the first interview in Romanian media history.^[16] Working together, Mille, Beldiman, and Bacalbașa sought to coalesce the left-wing forces into a single league for universal suffrage, butAdevărul soon pulled out of the effort, accusing fellow militantConstantin Dobrescu-Argeș of having embezzled the funds put at his disposal.^[17]

In 1895, Mille purchased the newspaper, but, even though the Alecsandri motto was removed a short while after,^[5] Beldiman maintained editorial control until his death three years later, explaining that he was doing so in order to maintain an independent line.^[4][5] The purchase was received with consternation by many PSDMR members, particularly sinceAdevărul competed with its official platforms (Munca and, after 1894,Lumea Nouă).^[18] In late 1893,Adevărul was also publishing articles by an unsigned author, who may have beenConstantin Stere (later known as the man behind post-socialist "Poporanism") ridiculingMunca'selitist content.^[19]

Eventually, the PSDMR expelled Mille on grounds of having betrayed socialism.^[5][18] Allegedly upset that Beldiman had chosen Mille's offer over his own, Anton Bacalbașa quitAdevărul, becoming one of Mille's most vocal critics.^[5] A third Bacalbașa,Constantin, stayed on, and, from 1895, was Mille's first editor.^[20] He became known for hisanti-colonial stance, giving positive coverage to the 1896Philippine Revolution.^[21]

In 1904, the board created Adevĕrul S. A., the first in a series ofjoint stock companies meant to insure its control of commercial rights.^[22] In 1898, after Mille invested its profits intoreal estate,Adevărul left its crowded surroundings and moved to a specially designed new building on Sărindar Street (the present-day C. Mille Street, between Calea Victoriei and theCișmigiu Gardens). Inspired byLe Figaro's palatial quarters, it was first building of such proportions in the history of Romania's print media, housing a printing press, paper storage, distribution office and mail room, as well as a library, several archives, a phone station and aRomanian Orthodoxchapel.^[5][6][13] Its halls were luxuriously decorated according to Mille's specifications, and adorned withposters by international artists such asHenri de Toulouse-Lautrec andAlfons Mucha, and by its own occasional illustrator,Nicolae Vermont.^[5][13] Around 1900, Mille purchased a neighboring plot, the former Saint-Frères manufacturing plant, and unified both buildings under a single facade.^[13] It was there that, after placing an order with theMergenthaler Company, he installed the firstLinotype machines to be used locally.^{[5][6][12][13]}

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.^[12] Writing in 1898, Mille took pride in calling his newspaper "a daily encyclopedia" or "cinema" for the regular public, universally available at only 5bani per copy.^[23] In 1904, making efforts to keep up with his rivalLuigi Cazzavillan, founder of theright-wing competitorUniversul,^[5] Mille established a morning edition, which was emancipated under separate management in December of the same year, under the new nameDimineața. As of 1912,Dimineața was the first Romanian daily to usefull color print, with a claim to have been the world's first color newspaper.^[5][6] Beginning 1905, both gazettes ensured stable revenues by leasing theirclassified advertising sections to Carol Schulder's Schulder Agency.^[6]

Nicolae Petrescu Găină's caricature ofC. I. Stăncescu, original watercolor

The same image, as republished byAdevărul

In order to consecrate the newspaper's cultural ambitions, Mille became head of a literary club,^[5] 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 byAdevĕrul Ilustrat ("The Illustrated Truth") and soon after byAdevĕrul de Joi ("The Truth on Thursday"), edited by poetArtur Stavri, and eventually closed down due to lack of funding in 1897.^[15] Although short-lived, these publications had a significant part on the cultural scene, and hosted contributions by influential, mostly left-wing, cultural figures: Stavri, Stere,Constantin D. Anghel,Traian Demetrescu,Arthur Gorovei,Ion Gorun,Henric andSimion Sanielevici.^[15] In this context,Adevărul also began receiving contributions from prominent humoristIon Luca Caragiale—previously a conservative adversary, known for his mockery of republicansensationalism.^[24] In return for the 1897 setback, the gazette began allocating space to serialized works of literature, includingsketches by Caragiale (most of the writings later published asMomente și schițe), as well asThe Count of Monte Cristo byAlexandre Dumas, père.^[15]

In later years,Adevărul experimented by publishing a different supplement each day, including one titledLitere și Arte ("Arts and Letters").^[15] By the mid-1890s,Adevărul was encouraging developments invisual arts in Romania, publishing several original posters,^[6] and hosting art chronicles signed with various pseudonyms. In 1895, it covered the artistic environment's split into several competing wings: its columnist, using the pseudonymIndex, gave a negative review toNicolae Grigorescu and the otherImpressionists orRealists who together had rebelled against the officialacademic salon ofC. I. Stăncescu.^[25] The following year however, a chronicler who used the pen nameGal praised the anti-academic independents' salon, supporting its membersștefan Luchian,Alexandru Bogdan-Pitești and Vermont (whose portraits it featured as illustrations for the texts, alongside a notorious caricature of C. I. Stăncescu byNicolae Petrescu-Găină).^[26]

By 1905,Adevărul was publishing a supplement titledViața Literară ("The Literary Life", edited by Coșbuc, Gorun andIlarie Chendi) and two other satirical periodicals,Belgia Orientului ("The Orient'sBelgium", named after a common sarcastic reference to the Romanian Kingdom) andNea Ghiță ("Uncle Ghiță").^[15] It also began running its own publishing house,Editura Adevĕrul, noted early on for its editions of Constantin Mille's novels, Caragiale's sketches, andGeorge Panu's memoirs of his time with the literary clubJunimea.^[15] In parallel, Mille reached out into other areas oflocal culture. Early on, he instituted a tradition of monthly festivities, paid for from his own pocket, and noted for the participation of leading figures inRomanian theater (Maria Giurgea,Constantin Nottara andAristizza Romanescu among them).^[14] Beginning 1905, the paper had for its illustratorIosif Iser, one of the major graphic artists of his generation, whose satirical drawings most often targeted Carol I andRussianEmperorNicholas II (attacked for violently suppressing the1905 Revolution).^[27] As a promotional tactic,Adevărul participated in the National Fair of 1906, where it exemplified its printing techniques while putting out a collector's version of the newspaper, titledAdevĕrul la Expoziție ("Adevĕrul at the Exhibit").^[6]

Several mass social, cultural and political campaigns were initiated or endorsed byAdevărul before 1910. According to one of Constantin Mille's columns of 1906, the newspaper 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."^[5] In line with Beldiman and Mille's political vision, it militated for a statue ofDomnitor Cuza to be erected in Iași (such a monument being eventually inaugurated in 1912).^[12] Similar initiatives included the 1904 event marking 400 years since the death ofMoldavian PrinceStephen the Great, and the erection inCraiova of a bust honoring its deceased contributor, poet Traian Demetrescu.^[12] At around the same time, Mille's gazette became a noted supporter offeminism, and created a special column,Cronica femeii ("The Woman's Chronicle"), assigned to female journalistEcaterina Raicoviceanu-Fulmen.^[28] Over the following decade, it hosted regular contributions by other militant women, among themLucrezzia Karnabatt,E. Marghita,Maura Prigor,Laura Vampa andAida Vrioni.^[28] Having endorsed the creation of a journalists'trade union and aRomanian Writers' Society, the newspaper also claimed to have inspired the idea of a Bucharestambulance service, a project taken up by physicianNicolae Minovici and fulfilled in 1906.^[12] Despite his leftist sympathies, Mille found himself in conflict withRomania's labor movement: believing that the Linotype machines would render their jobs obsolete, they went onstrike, before the editor himself resolved to educate them all in the new techniques.^[6]

Adevărul's ongoing support for Jewish emancipation was accompanied by a sympathetic take on the growingZionist movement. In 1902, the paper offered an enthusiastic reception to visiting French ZionistBernard Lazare, prompting negative comments from theantisemitic French observers.^[29] By 1906,Adevărul's attitude prompted historianNicolae Iorga, leader of the antisemiticDemocratic Nationalist Party, to accuse the newspaper of cultivating a "Jewish national sentiment" which, he claimed, had for its actual goal the destruction of Romania.^[30] In hisNaționalism sau democrație ("Nationalism or Democracy") series of articles forSămănătorul magazine (anethno-nationalist organ published by Iorga), the Transylvanian-based thinkerAurel Popovici, who criticized the elites of Austria-Hungary on grounds that they were serving Jewish interests, alleged that the impact ofAdevărul andDimineața carried the same risk for Romania.^[31] In later years, Iorga casually referred toAdevărul as "the Jewish press organ", while, together with his political associateA. C. Cuza and other contributors to hisNeamul Românesc journal, he repeatedly claimed that the entire press was controlled by the Jews.^[32] The antisemitic discourse targeting the Sărindar-based publications was taken up in the same period by the traditionalist Transylvanian poetOctavian Goga and by businessman-journalistStelian Popescu (who, in 1915, became owner ofUniversul).^[33]

Pursuing its interest in the peasant question,Adevărul was one of the main factors of dissent during the1907 Peasant Revolt, which was violently quelled by the National Liberal cabinet ofDimitrie 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.^[8] Various researchers accuse Mille of having seriously exaggerated the scale of repression for political purposes.^{[23][34][35][36]} Historian Anton Caragea, who theorizes the intrusion of Austria-Hungary, argues that, having received payments from Austro-Hungarian spies, bothAdevărul andUniversul were conditioned to incite public sentiment against the Sturdza executive.^[35] Soon after the revolt,Editura Adevĕrul published Caragiale's1907, 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.^[15][37]

Following the 1907 events, the gazette participated in an extended anti-monarchy campaign, which also involvedFacla, a newspaper edited by Mille's son-in-law,^[36] therepublican and socialist journalistN. D. Cocea, as well as Romaniananarchist milieus.^[38] In 1912, it participated in one of Cocea's publicity stunts, during which theFacla editor, together with his colleague, poetTudor Arghezi, simulated their own trial forlèse majesté, by reporting the mock procedures and hosting advertisements forFacla.^[38] LikeFacla itself,Adevărul circulated stereotypical satires of Carol I, constantly referring to him asneamțul ("the German" incolloquial terms) orcăpușa ("the tick").^[38]

In 1912, the combined circulation ofAdevărul andDimineața exceeded 100,000 copies, bringing it a revenue of 1 millionlei;^[12] the two periodicals assessed that, between January and August 1914, they had printed some 1,284tons of paper.^[39]Adevărul 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.^[12]Adevărul reportedly had a notoriously stiff editorial policy, outlined by Mille and applied by his administrative editor Sache Petreanu, whereby it taxed theproofreaders for each typo.^[12][14] Mille himself repeatedly urged his employees to keep up with the events, decking the walls with portraits of 19th-century newspapermanZaharia Carcalechi, infamous for his professional lassitude.^[5] In addition to establishing permanent telephone links within Austria-Hungary (in bothVienna andBudapest),Adevărul maintained a regular correspondence with variousBalkan capitals, and pioneeredshorthand in transcribing interviews.^[6] Among its indigenous journalists to be sent on special assignment abroad wereEmil Fagure andBarbu Brănișteanu, who reported on the 1908Young Turk Revolution from inside theOttoman Empire, as well as from thePrincipality of Bulgaria and theKingdom of Serbia.^[6] The newspaper was nevertheless subject to apractical joke played by its correspondent, future writerVictor Eftimiu: instead of continuing hisAdevărul-sponsored trip to France, Eftimiu stopped in Vienna, and compiled his "Letters fromParis" column from the press articles he read at Café Arkaden.^[40]

Adevărul's coverage of the international scene gave Romanians a window to political and cultural turmoil. By 1908,Adevărul was covering the burgeoning Europeanavant-garde, offering mixed reviews toFuturism and deploring the supposed end ofliterary realism.^[41] In late 1910, claiming to speak for "the democratic world", it celebrated thePortuguese republican revolt.^[42] The efforts made for establishing and preserving international connections,Adevărul claimed, made it one of the first papers in the world to report some other events of continental importance: the 1911 food riots in Vienna, the outbreak of theFirst Balkan War, and the diplomatic conflict between theGreek and Bulgarian Kingdoms in the run-up to theSecond Balkan War.^[6] During the latter showdowns,Adevărul also employed several literary and political personalities as its correspondents: the paper's future managerIacob Rosenthal inSofia, Serbian journalistPera Taletov inBelgrade, Romanian writerArgentina Monteoru inIstanbul, and PrinceAlbert Gjika inCetinje.^[6] In July 1913, the newspaper reported extensively on massacres committed by theHellenic Army inDojran,Kilkis and other settlements ofMacedonia, while discussing the "terror regime" instituted in Bulgaria byTsarFerdinand I.^[43] Later the same month, as Romania joined the anti-Bulgarian coalition and her troops enteredSouthern Dobruja,Adevărul gave coverage to the spread ofcholera among soldiers, accusing the Conservative executive headed byTitu Maiorescu of hiding its actual toll.^[44]

Also at that stage, the newspaper had become known for organizingraffles, which provided winners with expensive prizes, such as real estate and furniture.^[12] It was also the first periodical to have established itself in the countryside, a record secured through a special contract with theRomanian Post, whereby postmen acted as press distributors, allowing some 300 press storage rooms to be established nationally.^[5][12] Political differences of the period, pittingAdevărul editors against National Liberal politicos, threatened this monopoly: under National Liberal cabinets, the Post was prevented from distributing the newspaper, leading it to rely on subscriptions and private distributors.^[12] Famous among the latter were Bucharestpaperboys, who advertisedAdevărul with political songs such as the republican anthemLa Marseillaise.^[12]

After the outbreak ofWorld War I, the newspaper further divided the surviving socialist camp by swinging into theinterventionist group, calling for a declaration of war against theCentral Powers.^[45] This position was more compatible with that of newspapers likeUniversul,Flacăra,Furnica orEpoca, clashing with the socialist press, thePoporanists, andGermanophile gazettes such asSeara,Steagul,Minerva orOpinia.^[46] According to historianLucian Boia, this stance was partly explained by the Jewish origin of its panelists, who, as advocates of assimilation, wanted to identify with the Romaniancultural nationalism andirredenta; an exception was the Germanophile Brănișteanu, for a while marginalized within the group.^[47]

Adevărul agitated with energy against Austria-Hungary on the Transylvanian issue, while giving less exposure to the problems of Romanians in Russian-heldBessarabia. This was a programmatic choice, outlined by Transylvanian academicIoan Ursu in a September 1914 article forAdevărul, whereRussophobia was condemned as a canard.^[48] Over the course of 1914, the aging historianA. D. Xenopol also madeAdevărul the host of his interventionist essays, later collected as a volume.^[49] In early winter 1915,Adevărul publicized the visit ofBritish scholarRobert William Seton-Watson, who campaigned in favor of theEntente Powers and supported the interventionistCultural League for the Unity of All Romanians. In his interview withAdevărul, Seton-Watson identified the goals of Romanians with those ofSerbs andCroats, stressing that their common interest called for the partition of Austria-Hungary, ending what he called "the brutal and artificial domination of theMagyar race".^[50] One of the newspaper's own articles, published in April 1916, focused on theethnic GermanTransylvanian Saxons and their relationship with Romanians in Austria-Hungary, claiming: "Except for the Hungarians, we had throughout our history, just as we have today, an enemy just as irreducible and who would desire our disappearance just as much: the Saxon people."^[51] According to literary historian Dumitru Hîncu, such discourse was replicated by other pro-Entente venues, marking a temporary break with a local tradition of more positiveethnic stereotypes regarding the Germans.^[51]

The interventionist campaign peaked in summer 1916, when it became apparent thatIon I. C. Brătianu's National Liberal cabinet was pondering Romania's entry into the conflict on the Entente side (seeRomania 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.^[52] The newspaper, described byAmerican scholar Glenn E. Torrey as "sensationalist", provided enthusiastic accounts of the Russians'Brusilov Offensive, which had stabilized theEastern Front in Romania's proximity, announcing that the "supreme moment" for Romania's intervention had arrived.^[53] This attitude resulted in a clash betweenAdevărul on one side and Romania's new dominant socialist faction, theSocial Democratic Party of Romania (PSDR) and the socialist-controlled labor movement on the other. The newspaper reported the official government position on the bloody confrontations between workers andRomanian Army troops in the city ofGalați.^[54] Using a style Torrey describes as "inflammatory",Adevărul also attacked PSDR leaderChristian Rakovsky, co-founder of the anti-interventionist andinternationalistZimmerwald Movement, accusing him of being an "adventurer" and hireling of theGerman Empire.^[55] In a 1915 letter to Zimmerwald promoterLeon Trotsky, Rakovsky himself claimed that Mille had been corrupted byTake Ionescu, leader of the pro-EntenteConservative-Democratic Party, and that his newspapers issuedpropaganda "under the mask of independence".^[56]

Romania eventually signed the1916 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 inIași. While Mille himself fled to Iași and later Paris, his newspapers were banned by the German authorities and the Sărindar headquarters became home to theGerman-language official mouthpiece,Bukarester Tageblatt.^[5][13][22] Brănișteanu, who did not join in the exodus, worked withConstantin Stere on the Germanophile paperLumina.^[57] In early 1919, as the Germans lost the war, Mille returned and bothAdevărul andDimineața were again in print.^[5][13][22] In later years,Adevărul'sConstantin Costa-Foru covered in detail and with noted clemency the trials of various "collaborationist" journalists, including some of its former and future contributors (Stere,Tudor Arghezi,Saniel Grossman).^[58] The newspaper was by then also reporting about Seton-Watson's disappointment with post-warGreater Romania and thecentralist agenda of its founders.^[59]

Once reestablished,Adevărul became a dominant newspaper of theinterwar period and preserved its formative role forpopular culture, being joined in its leftist niche some other widely circulated periodicals (Cuvântul Liber,Rampa etc.).^[60] More serious competition came from its old rivalUniversul, which now surpassed it in popularity at a national level.^[61] By 1934,Adevărul andDimineața still boasted a combined daily circulation of 150,000 copies.^[62]

In 1920, Mille retired from the position of editor-in-chief and moved on to createLupta journal, amidst allegations that he had been pressured out by rival business interests.^[5][22]Adevărul andDimineața were both purchased byAristide Blank, aRomanian Jewish entrepreneur,National Liberal politician and owner ofEditura Cultura Națională company. He sold the controlling stock to other prominent Jewish businessmen, Emil and Simion Pauker, reactivating the Adevĕrul S. A. holding in the process.^[5][13][22] Mille himself was replaced byConstantin Graur, who held managerial positions until 1936.^[13][22][63] Simion and Emil Pauker were, respectively, the father and uncle ofMarcel Pauker, later a maverick figure in the outlawedRomanian Communist Party (PCR).^[22][64] The Paukers' ethnicity made their two newspapers preferred targets of attacks by the local antisemitic groups.^[22][65] In that decade,Adevărul was generally sympathetic to theNational Peasants' Party, the main political force opposing the National Liberal establishment.^[66]

The paper employed a new generation of panelists, most of whom were known for their advocacy of left-wing causes. In addition to professional journalists Brănișteanu,Constantin Bacalbașa,Tudor Teodorescu-Braniște, they included respected novelistMihail Sadoveanu and debuting essayistPetre Pandrea,^[15] as well as the best-selling fiction authorCezar Petrescu, who was briefly a member of the editorial staff.^[67] Other writers with socialist orpacifist sympathies also became collaborators ofAdevărul andDimineața, most notably:Elena Farago,Eugen Relgis,Ion Marin Sadoveanu andGeorge Mihail Zamfirescu.^[68] Especially noted among the young generation of leftists wasF. Brunea-Fox. After a stint as political editorialist withAdevărul, he became the Romanian "prince of reporters", withinvestigative journalism pieces which were mainly hosted byDimineața.^[62]

Despite the effects of theGreat Depression, the new management purchased another building in Sărindar area, tearing it down and replacing it with another palace wing, inreinforced concrete, and unifying the three facades by late 1933.^[13] The extended location, covering some 1,700 m², came to house arotary printing press which was also in use by the magazineRealitatea Ilustrată, a conference hall, acafeteria and sleeping quarters for thejanitors.^[13] The post-1920 issues introduced a number of changes in format. It began hostingphotojournalistic pieces byIosif Berman, one of Romania's celebrated photographers (who had made his debut withDimineața in 1913).^[69][70]Adevărul began headlining its front page with a short listing of the top news of the day, often accompanied by sarcastic editorial commentary.^[63]

Among the other innovations were regular columns discussing developments in literature and philosophy, written by two youngmodernist authors,Benjamin Fondane andIon Vinea, as well as a theater chronicle by Fagure andIosif Nădejde.^[15] Vinea's texts discussed literary authenticity,eclecticism, and consistent praises of modernlyrical prose.^[71] Other such articles followed Vinea's rivalry with his former colleagueTristan Tzara, and stated his rejection ofDadaism, a radicalavant-garde current that Tzara had formed inSwitzerland during the war.^[72] In 1922, Vinea went on to establishContimporanul, an influential modernist and socialist tribune, which maintained warm contact withAdevărul.^[60] Around that time,Adevărul had a printing-press contract with Alexandru Tzaran, the socialist activist and entrepreneur, whose company also published avant-garde books,^[73] and revisited projects for creating a literary supplement. In 1920, it set upAdevĕrul Literar și Artistic, soon to be rated one of the prominent Romanian cultural journals.^[15] Seven years later, it also began printing a magazine forRomanian Radio enthusiasts, under the titleRadio Adevĕrul.^[74]

The newspaper was involved in cultural debates over the following two decades. It attracted contributions from various cultural ideologists, among them criticsșerban Cioculescu,Petru Comarnescu,Eugen Lovinescu andPaul Zarifopol, writersDemostene Botez,Eugeniu Botez,Victor Eftimiu,Eugen Jebeleanu andCamil Petrescu, andAromanian cultural activistNicolae Constantin Batzaria.^[15] Beginning 1928, Cioculescu took over theAdevărul literary column.^[15] That same year,Adevărul 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.^[75] In 1931, it circulated young criticLucian Boz's defense of Tzara and praise for sculptorConstantin Brâncuși, both of whom, he stressed, had brought "fresh Romanian air into the realm ofWestern culture".^[76] By 1932, it was hosting contributions fromGeorge Călinescu, including one which criticized his former disciple Boz,^[76] and excerpts from Lovinescu's memoirs.^[77] In 1937,Adevărul hosted a polemic between Lovinescu and his discipleFelix Aderca, where the topic was avant-garde heroUrmuz,^[78] and a special column for women in culture. Probably conceived by feminist writerIzabela Sadoveanu-Evan (already known toAdevărul readers as a popularizer ofEnglish literature), it was signed by several prominent women of the day.^[79]

Editura Adevĕrul signed on some of the best-selling authors in modern Romanian literature, among them Sadoveanu, Călinescu, Eugeniu Botez,Liviu Rebreanu andGala Galaction.^[15] It also put out several other popular works, such as memoirs and essays byQueen Marie of Romania, the comedic hitTitanic Vals byTudor Mușatescu, and, after 1934, a number of primary school textbooks.^[15] By the mid-1930s,Adevărul had launched sister magazines dedicated to photo-reportage (Realitatea Ilustrată),Hollywood films (Film) and health (Medicul Nostru).^[80]

BothAdevărul andDimineața were noted for their rejection of interwar antisemitism, and for condemning thefar right andfascist segment of the political spectrum. Romanian fascism was at the time grouped around theNational-Christian Defense League (LANC), presided upon byAdevărul's old adversaryA. C. Cuza. During 1921, the liberal Fagure ridiculed the supposed threat of Jewishcommunization in newly acquiredBessarabia, countering the supposed threat ofJewish Bolshevism (officially endorsed and publicized byUniversul).^[81] At the time,Adevărul was even voicing criticism ofSoviet Russia from the left: young Brunea-Fox discussed ananti-Soviet workers' rebellion as a movement for individual freedoms.^[62] In 1923,Adevărul publishing house printed a booklet by the leftist whistleblowerEmanoil Socor, wherein proof was given that A. C. Cuza's academic career rested onplagiarism.^[82]

The same year, the LANC's entireparamilitary wing, including young activistCorneliu Zelea Codreanu, was rounded up by the authorities. These uncovered the fascists' plan to murder various National Liberal politicians, the editors ofLupta, andAdevărul managerIacob Rosenthal.^[83]Adevărul later published the results of an investigation byanti-fascist reporter Dinu Dumbravă, who discussed LANC involvement in the 1925pogrom ofFocșani, and mentioned that theeducational system was being penetrated by antisemites.^[84] In 1927, it joined the condemnation of LANC-sponsored violence in Transylvania: a contributor, the lawyer-activistDem. I. Dobrescu, referred to Codreanu and his men as Romania's "shame".^[85] In December 1930, leftist sociologistMihai Ralea, one of the main figures in theViața Românească circle, choseAdevărul as the venue for his essayRăzbunarea noțiunii de democrație ("Avenging the Notion of Democracy"), which condemned the then-popular theory that democratic regimes were inferior tototalitarian ones.^[86]Adevărul reported with concern on some otherconspiracies against the legitimate government, including officerVictor Precup's attempt to assassinate KingCarol II onGood Friday 1934.^[87]

In parallel,Adevărul took an interest in promoting alternatives to nationalist theories. It thus attempted to mediate the ongoing disputes between Romania andHungary, an editorial policy notably taken up in 1923, when the exiled Hungarian intellectualOszkár Jászi visited Bucharest. In that context,Adevărul published Jászi's interview withConstantin Costa-Foru, wherein Jászi mapped out aDanubian Confederation scheme, criticizing "thoughts of war and sentiments of hatred" among both Romanians and Magyars.^[88] In anotherAdevărul piece, Jászi's vision was commended as a democratic alternative to theauthoritarianHungarian Regency regime, leadingHungarian AmbassadorIván Rubido-Zichy to express his displeasure.^[89] Later, even as Jászi arose the suspicions of many Romanians and was shunned by theHungarian community in Romania,Adevărul still expressed sympathy for his cause, notably with a 1935 essay by Transylvanian journalistIon Clopoțel.^[90] The newspaper also denouncedinterwar Germany's attempts to absorbAustria (a proto-Anschluss), primarily because they stood to channel Hungary'srevanchism.^[91] It also reported with much sarcasm on the friendly contacts between the Romanian nationalists at LANC and the Hungarian revanchistSzeged Fascists.^[92] Meanwhile,Adevărul was vividly critical of centralizing policies in post-1920 "Greater Romania", primarily in Transylvania and Bessarabia. Articles on this topic were mainly contributed byOnisifor Ghibu, a former activist for the Transylvanian Romanian cause.^[93]

One of the new causes in whichAdevărul involved itself after 1918 wasbirth control, which it supported from aeugenic perspective. This advocacy was foremost illustrated by the regular medical column of 1923, signedDoctor Ygrec (the pseudonym of a Jewish practitioner), which proposed both prenuptial certificates and the legalization ofabortion.^[94] The issues attracted much interest after Ygrec and his counterpart atUniversul, who expressed moral and social objections, debated the matter for an entire month.^[95] While voicing such concerns,Adevărul itself publishedprejudiced claims, such as a 1928 article by physician George D. Ionășescu, who portrayed the steady migration ofOltenian natives into Bucharest as a "social danger" which brought with it "promiscuity, squalor and infection", and called for restrictions on internal migration.^[87] Generallyanti-racist, the paper helped publicize the alternative, anti-fascistracialism proposed byHenric Sanielevici in the 1930s.^[96]Adevărul also published a 1929 piece by Nicolae Constantin Batzaria, in which the latter showed his adversity to radical forms offeminism, recommending women to find their comfort in marriage.^[97]

By the mid-1930s, the tension betweenAdevărul and the increasingly pro-fascistUniversul degenerated into open confrontation. Emil Pauker's newspapers were by then also being targeted by the new fascist movement known as theIron 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.^[98] According to the recollections of PCR activistSilviu Brucan, the Iron Guardists, who supportedUniversul, attacked distributors ofAdevărul andDimineața, prompting young communist and socialists to organize themselves intovigilante groups and fight back, which in turn led to a series of street battles.^[22] Beginning 1935, the scandals also involvedSfarmă-Piatră, a virulent far right newspaper headed byNichifor Crainic and funded byStelian Popescu, the new publisher ofUniversul.^[99] 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 inCraiova, and involved as a co-defendant Simion Pauker's daughter-in-law,Ana Pauker.^[22] Mainstream politicianConstantin Argetoianu, citing an unnamedAdevărul journalist, had it that Emil Pauker, otherwise an outspokenanti-communist, was trying to protect even the more estranged members of his family.^[22] With the change in management, some of the establishedAdevărul authors moved toUniversul. This was the case with C. Bacalbașa (1935)^[20] and Batzaria (1936).^[100] In hisUniversul columns, the latter displayed a degree of sympathy for the extreme right movement.^[101]

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 actingPremierGheorghe Tătărescu.^[22] Mihail Sadoveanu succeeded Graur as editor-in-chief, while also taking over leadership ofDimineața,^[22][102] and Eugen Lovinescu became a member of the company's executive panel.^[70] With this change in management came a new stage in the conflict opposingAdevărul to the far right press. Through the voices of Crainic,Alexandru Gregorian andN. Crevedia, the two extremist journalsPorunca Vremii andSfarmă-Piatră repeatedly targeted Sadoveanu with antisemitic andantimasonic epithets, accusing him of having become a tool for Jewish interests and, as leader of theRomanian Freemasonry, of promotingoccult practices.^[102] The controversy also involved modernist poetTudor Arghezi, whose writings Sadoveanu defended against charges of "pornography" coming from the nationalist press.^[15]Adevărul did in fact back similar charges against novelistMircea Eliade, who was in conflict with Teodorescu-Braniște, and whom Doctor Ygrec dismissed as an "erotomaniac".^[80]

Adevărul andDimineața, together withLupta, were suppressed in 1937, when the fascistNational Christian Party ofOctavian Goga, successor to the LANC and rival of the Iron Guard, took over government. This was primarily an antisemitic measure among severalracial discrimination laws adopted with the consent of Carol II, the increasinglyauthoritarian monarch, and officially credited the notion according to which both venues were "Jewish".^[103] The decision to close down the publications was accompanied by anationalization of their assets, which reportedly included a large part ofIosif Berman'snegatives.^[22] In one of the paper's last issues, Teodorescu-Braniște warned against the identification of democracy "within the limits ofconstitutional monarchy" withBolshevism, noting thatAdevărul's enemies had willingly introduced such a confusion.^[104] In his diary ofWorld War II events, Brănișteanu described the ban as having inaugurated the era of "barbarity".^[22] This referred to the bloody clash between Carol and the Iron Guard, to Goga's downfall, and to the establishment of a three successivewartime dictatorships: Carol'sNational Renaissance Front, the Guard'sNational Legionary State, and the authoritarian regime ofConducătorIon Antonescu.^[22]

The three regimes organized successive purges of Jewish and left-wing journalists, preventing several of theAdevărul employees from working in the field.^[105] During its episodic rise to power, the Iron Guard mapped out its revenge against people associated withAdevărul, dividing its former staff into three categories: "kikes", "traitors", and "minions".^[70] Nichifor Crainic, who served as Minister ofPropaganda 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 tribuneGândirea, referred to Goga's 1937 action againstAdevărul and the others as a "splendid act of justice".^[106] According to one story, the palatial office formerly belonging toAdevărul was still at the center of a conflict between underground communists and the Guard: during theLegionary Rebellion of January 1941, the PCR attempted to set it on fire and then blame the arson on the fascists, but this plan was thwarted by press photographer Nicolae Ionescu.^[70]

BothAdevărul andDimineața were restored on April 13, 1946, two years since theAugust 1944 Coup ended Romania's alliance withNazi Germany by bringing down Antonescu. The new editorial staff was led by the aging newspaperman Brănișteanu and the new collective owner was the joint stock company Sărindar S. A.^[63] The daily did not have its headquarters in Sărindar (which was allocated to the Luceafărul Printing House),^[13] but remained in the same general area, on Matei Millo Street and later on Brezoianu Street.^[63] In the first issue of its new series,Adevărul carried Brănișteanu's promise of pursuing the same path as Mille, and was accompanied by a reprint of Mille's political testament.^[63] Brănișteanu's article stated: "We did not and will not belong to any person, to any government, to any party."^[63] The series coincided with a spell ofpluralism contested by theSoviet Union'soccupation of Romania, the steadycommunization of stately affairs, and political moves to create acommunist regime. Brănișteanu noted these developments in his debut editorial of 1946, with a positive spin: "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 ofsocialist 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 inRussia."^[63]

Barbu Brănișteanu died in December 1947, just days before the Kingdom was replaced with a pro-Sovietpeople's republic in which the dominant force was the PCR.^[63][107] The gazette celebrated the political transition, publishing the official communique proclaiming the republic, and commenting on it: "A new face ofRomanian 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."^[107] Honored with a front-pageobituary,^[63][107] Brănișteanu was succeeded byH. Soreanu, who ledAdevărul for the following two years.^[63] Soreanu was originally from the city ofRoman, where he had presided over a local gazette.^[108]

In stages after that date,Adevărul was affected bycommunist censorship: according to historian Cristian Vasile, while generally infused with "official propaganda", the paper overall failed in effecting "the transformation requested by the [new] regime."^[109] Its content grew more politicized, offering praise to Soviet and Communist party initiatives such as thefive-year plans, the encouragement and spread ofatheism, and the promotion ofRussian literature.^[63] Nevertheless, it continued to publish more traditional articles, including pieces signed by Brunea-Fox and poetDemostene Botez, as well as the regular columnsCarnetul 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 sectionChestia zilei ("The Daily Issue").^[63] Another satirical section, titledTablete ("Tablets") and contributed byTudor Arghezi, existed between 1947 and 1948; it came to an abrupt end when Arghezi was banned, having been singled out for his "decadent" poetry inSorin Toma's ideological column forScînteia, the main communist mouthpiece (seeSocialist realism in Romania).^[15] In early 1948,Adevărul was also hosting some of the few independently voiced theater chronicles of the day, including a subversive contribution from the self-exiled authorMonica Lovinescu, where she indirectly referred to communism asKafkaesque experimentation.^[110]

The newspaper was eventually placed under an "editorial committee", whose effective leader was Communist Party bossLeonte Răutu, and whose mission was to prepareAdevărul for liquidation.^[105] In early 1951, at a time when the communist regime closed down all autonomous press venues,Adevărul was taken out of print. In its final issue (18,039th of March 31, 1951), the paper informed that: "theworking 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 ofAdevĕrul newspaper is over."^[63][111] Cristian Vasile notes that the "official explanation" for suppressingAdevărul was "ridiculous and unconvincing."^[110] Indication that the closure occurred unexpectedly also comes fromAdevărul's failure to cancel its subscriptions in advance.^[63]

A daily paper with the nameAdevărul was again set up in the immediate aftermath of the1989 Revolution, which had toppled the communist regime and itsone-party system. The publication, which is housed by theHouse of the Free Press, is often described as a direct successor to the PCR organScînteia (rival of the 1940sAdevărul).^{[23][112][113][114][115][116]} Three intermediary issues were published during the actual revolutionary events; a free one-page issue on December 22 and two further issues on December 23 and 24 respectively, under the titleScînteia Poporului ("The People's Spark"), which published appeals issued by the provisionalpost-communist leadership forum, theNational Salvation Front (FSN), adopting the nameAdevărul starting December 25.^[117] 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 Ceaușescu, replacing them with journalists sympathetic to the FSN.^[118] Soon after Ceaușescu's execution, the gazette began serializingRed Horizons, a volume of recollections exposing the defunct regime, authored byIon Mihai Pacepa, adefector and former spy chief.^[113] At the time, it circulated the claim, supported by the FSN, that Ceaușescu's repression of the popular revolt had killed as many as 60,000 people, which was a 60-fold increase of the actual death toll.^[23]

Edited after its resurgence by the pro-FSN poet and translatorDarie Novăceanu,^{[23][114][119]}Adevărul became the dominant left-wing newspaper ofpost-communist Romania. In parallel,Dimineața was itself revived, and, although independent fromAdevărul, was also a FSN mouthpiece.^[120] Their main right-wing rival was another former Communist Party venue,România Liberă, which openly reproached on the FSN that it was monopolizing power, and which identified itself withliberalism andpluralism.^[121] Reflecting back on the early 1990s,Southampton Institute researcher David Berry argued: "the ideological forces associated with the previousStalinist regime were pitted against a much smaller and disparate oppositional group. This latter group was associated withRomânia 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, throughAdevărul, to discredit opposition forces."^[122] In 1990, both papers reputedly sold around 1 million copies each day,^[114][123] a pattern attributed to "news deprivation" under communism, and believed by Berry to be "a phenomenal figure in comparison to any leadingWestern nation".^[124]

In this context,Adevărul advertised that its main purpose was the dissemination of "nothing but the truth", of "exact information".^[23] The paper however stood out for promotingnationalist,populist andauthoritarian concepts, which Berry has associated with the survival of previousnational communist themes in FSN discourse.^[125] Such theses acquired particularly controversial representations during the violentTârgu Mureș riots of March 1990. Backing the official view according to which theethnic Hungarian community was organizing itself inseparatist struggle, it dedicated space to articles targeting the oppositionDemocratic Union of Hungarians (UDMR). Initially, Berry notes,Adevărul reported claims of extremist Hungarians inTransylvania committingvandalism against national monuments while acknowledging that the UDMR was not endorsing such acts, but slowly became a tribune for encouragingethnic Romanians to take action, exclusively presenting its public with politicized and unmitigated information provided by the official agencyRompres and by the Romanian ultra-nationalist groupVatra Românească.^[126] Its editorials, often based on rumors, included negative portrayals of Hungarians, methods described by Berry as "extremelyxenophobic", "unethical" and forms of "political manipulation".^[127]

Adevărul displayed constant hostility toward theGolaniad protests in Bucharest, which ranged for much of early 1990, and expressed praise for theMineriad of June 13–15, 1990. During the latter, miners from theJiu Valley, instigated by some of the officials, entered Bucharest and quashed the opposition's sit-in. Early on, the gazette called on theRomanian Police to forcefully evict the Golaniad demonstrators, whom it accused of encouraging "filth" and "promiscuity".^[128] It also depicted the Golaniad as a majorconspiracy, mounted against a legitimate government byneofascist andIron Guard groups.^{[23][119][129]} Together with the FSN'sAzi, it commended the pro-government workers at IMGB, the heavy machinery works, who attempted to force out the crowds, depicting it as an answer to alleged student violence against Police operatives.^[130]

When the miners organized a definitive clampdown, depicted inAdevărul as a peaceful takeover, the newspaper was one of the several House of the Free Press operations left untouched by the Mineriad.^[131] During the following days, it published material praising the miners for reestablishing order,^[132] while alleging that "their presence was absolutely necessary to annihilate the violence of extremist forces".^[23][133] It also popularized false rumors according to which, during their attacks on the oppositionNational Peasant andNational Liberal party headquarters, the miners had confiscated weapons,counterfeit money andillegal drugs.^[134] In addition to main editor Novăceanu, whose articles were congratulatory of "our miners",^[23] journalists who praised the Mineriad includeSergiu Andon (futureConservative Party politician),Cristian Tudor Popescu andCorina Drăgotescu.^[119]

Radical nationalism was observed in severalAdevărul articles throughout the FSN period. In one piece of March 22, days after the main Hungarian-Romanian clashes, writerRomulus Vulpescu described the danger of "irredentism" and "Horthyism", alleging that local Hungarians had assassinated several Romanian peasants.^[135] Vulpescu and other contributors repeatedly made unverifiable claims according to whichHungary was directly involved in stirring resentments, allegations also made by thestate-controlled television network.^[136] According to Romanian-born historianRadu Ioanid, in 1990–1991Adevărul and its opponentDreptatea of the anti-FSN National Peasants' Party both "joined theanti-Semitic barrage" of the period, a trend he believes was instigated by the publications ofCorneliu Vadim Tudor,Iosif Constantin Drăgan andEugen Barbu (all of them affiliated withRomânia Mare magazine).^[137] Ioanid singled outAdevărul and its collaborator Cristian Tudor Popescu, who, during the July 1991 commemoration of theIași pogrom, attacked writerElie Wiesel and otherHolocaust researchers for having evidencedIon Antonescu'scomplicity in extermination.^[138] In the early 1990s,Adevărul also stood out for its intenserepublicanism which opposed the return of communist-deposedKingMichael I, and published polemical pieces such as theFir-ai al naibii, majestate ("Curse You, Your Majesty", written by Andon).^{[114][119][139]}

A scandal surfaced in spring 1991, whenAdevărul was caught up in the first wave ofprivatization, following a decision of the FSN'sPetre Roman cabinet. A conflict reportedly opposed Novăceanu to Popescu: the latter suspected a secret understanding between Roman and theAdevărul leadership, providing for a facade privatization and transferring financial control to FSN politicians.^[114] This controversy ended only when Premier Roman appointed Novăceanu asRomanian Ambassador to Spain.^[23] TheScînteia patrimony was afterward divided betweenAdevărul and the state.^[114] In parallel, seeking to consolidate their publications' independence, the writing staff set up ajoint stock company,Adevărul Holding.^{[114][115][140]} Known initially as SC Adevărul SA, it had itsinitial public offering distributed through the "MEBO method" of employeebuyouts.^[114][141] As a result, the journalists owned 60% and other employees the other 40%,^[114] with a clause forbidding them from selling to outside investors (in effect until 2002).^[141] Subsequent trading within the holding andseasoned equity offerings provided the editorial staff with a controlling stock of approx. 30%.^[114] As part of its business profile, the post-privatizationAdevărul also earned criticism for not differentiating between articles and commercial content, publishing covert advertisements as opinion pieces.^[114][142] 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 andDumitru Tinu, were handling all the larger advertising revenues.^[114]

Occasionally, nationalist claims produced byAdevărul parted with the policies of FSN'sSocial Democratic (PSD) successors, particularly in matters relating to social issues andRomania's economy. In June 1993, the gazette attacked the PSD'sNicolae Văcăroiu cabinet for its privatization measures, claiming that the sale of thePetromin shipping firm toGreek investors was done "at a pittance", and calling on the government to resign.^[143] 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."^[143] After the post-Revolution authorities announced their intention to join theEuropean Union and accepted amonitoring process, the newspaper hosted the first in a long series ofEuroskeptic pieces, which generally objected to outside intervention, particularly in the area ofhuman rights, and were often signed by columnists Popescu andBogdan Chireac.^[144] British academic and observerTom Gallagher attributes this attitude to claims of "injuredpatriotism".^[145] In parallel,Adevărul displayed a strongsocially conservative agenda. During those years, the paper published numerous pieces covering Romanian society, which were primarily noted for their sensationalist andalarmist headlines, such as a claim, published in 1997, that "a quarter of Romania's children live in institutions".^[146] In early 1996,Adevărul was noted for criticizing localnon-governmental organizations promotingwomen's rights, alleging that, although financed by the European Union'sPhare fund, they only functioned on paper (an attitude which itself earned criticism forsexism).^[147] More debates ensued in March 1998, when Cristian Tudor Popescu published anAdevărul article under the titleFemeia nu e om ("The Woman Is Not a Human Being", or "The Woman Is Not a Man"), where he alleged that women cannot think.^[148] Another controversy of the mid-1990s also involved Popescu, criticized for hisAdevărul articles which, claimingfreedom of thought as their motivation, supported the cause of convicted FrenchHolocaust denierRoger Garaudy.^[149]

A political scandal touchedAdevărul some time after the1996 legislative election, when the Social Democrats' rivals from theDemocratic Convention,Democratic Party and other opposition groups formed government. This came after the newForeign Minister,Adrian Severin, publicly stated being in possession of a list comprising the names of several leading Romanian journalists who were agents of theRussianFederal Security Service.^[150][151] 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 mainAdevărul editors, was one of the people in question.^[150][151] The dispute prolonged itself over the following decade, particularly after Tinu's name was again used byPresidentEmil Constantinescu and formerForeign Intelligence Service directorIoan Talpeș in their recollections of the Severin incident.^[151]

Various commentators have noted a rise in the newspaper's informative quality later in the 1990s. Among them is British politician andMEPEmma Nicholson, who followed Romania's political scene throughout the decade. She singled outAdevărul and Romania's other major central daily,Evenimentul Zilei, as "high quality publications".^[152] Writing in 2002, Romanian media researcher Alex Ulmanu ratedAdevărul "the most successful, and arguably the best Romanian daily".^[153] Romanian sociologist and political commentator Marian Petcu sees its enduring popularity as the consequence of a "head start", withAdevărul having inherited fromScînteia "the facilities, the subscribers, the raw materials, the headquarters, the superstructure, the network of local correspondents etc."^[115] He also notes that the newer publication had produced a "less warlike and lessanti-communist" discourse than those of other dailies, and therefore appealing to a wider audience.^[115] 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."^[115]

According to surveys carried out around 2004, the paper was being perceived as the most credible title.^[115] 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 aboveEvenimentul Zilei andLibertatea.^[153] Other data for 2003 places that number at approx. 200,000, roughly equal to that ofEvenimentul Zilei, and ranking aboveLibertatea andCotidianul (with 140,000 and 120,000 copies respectively).^[154] According toEvenimentul Zilei, the circulation ofAdevărul actually dropped from 200,000 in 1998–2000 to 100,000 in the post-2001 era,^[114] whereasexternal auditors revealed that, in 2003, it was the fifth most-read newspaper (afterLibertatea,Evenimentul Zilei,Pro Sport andGazeta Sporturilor).^[141] AlongsideEvenimentul Zilei andPro Sport,Adevărul was also one of the first Romanian periodicals to take an interest in putting out anonline edition and adopting innovations inweb design, making its site the third most popular of its kind in 2002 (the year of its relaunch).^[153]

Both Tinu and Popescu helped consolidate their publication's reputation through their numerous television appearances, coming to be seen as leaders of opinion.^[114] According to Petcu, the public's confidence was what madeAdevărul "autonomous from the political power",^[115] while Nicholson attributes such progress to Popescu, whom she sees as "a journalistic icon".^[155] At the end of the transition, Petcu assessed the newAdevărul agenda as one in favor ofsocial justice,social security and "fast privatization that would avoid massiveunemployment".^[115] At the time, the paper's panelists also threw their support behind European integration, a change in political orientation illustrated by Chireac'stalk show onPro TV station, titledPro Vest ("Pro West").^[156] In 2003, Popescu was a co-founder and, afterRomânia Liberă editorPetre Mihai Băcanu withdrew from the race, first president of theRomanian Press Club, aprofessional association whose mission was setting ethical standards in journalism.^[157]

Despite such gestures, the paper continued to withstand accusations that it was itself unprofessional. Ulmanu argued that bothAdevărul and its smaller competitorCurentul 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."^[153] Disputes also surround its political agenda of the 2000–2004 period. Like the other mainstream publications,Adevărul supported the PSD-backedIon Iliescu in thepresidential election runoff of late 2000, against the ultra-nationalist rival of theGreater Romania Party,Corneliu Vadim Tudor.^[158] In this context, it notably published a piece questioning Tudor's self-identification as a firm adherent ofRomanian Orthodoxy, suggesting that he presented himself to foreigners as aBaptist Union adherent.^[158]

Opinions vary about the gazette's relationship with the PSD after the2000 legislative election, which consecrated the socialists' return in government. Some commentators seeAdevărul as a staunch critic of the resulting cabinet and of PSD policy-makerAdrian Năstase.^[159][160] However, journalist and academic Manuela Preoteasa highlights the PSD's "pressure on the media", and includesAdevărul among venues which, "apparently critical toward PSD [...] avoided criticizing some of the party leaders".^[142] In Marian Petcu's view,Adevărul adopted "a discourse stressing the need for prudence and balance, alternated with criticism of the political power whenever the latter failed to take firm decisions."^[115]

Adevărul also consolidated financial transparency, when the new editorial board, extended to include newcomers Chireac,Lelia Munteanu andAdrian Ursu, took over the role of supervisor in matters of advertising.^[114] 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 140,000United States dollars.^[114] Suspicions arose that Tinu was being secretly financed in this effort by theJordanian businessmanFathi Taher, already known for purchasing much advertisement space inAdevărul during the mid-1990s, and receiving additional support from PSD politician and entrepreneurViorel Hrebenciuc.^[114] According to a 2003 analysis inZiarul Financiar,Adevărul was considered for purchase by the French groupHachette, and later by aPolish conglomerate.^[141]

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.^[114][151] 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).^[114] Their interests were defended in court by former panelist Andon, owner of some 2% of the stock.^[114] 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.^[114] It was alleged that, at the time of his death, Tinu was consideringrebranding and restructuring,^[141] and that, in 2004, the newspaper's profits were only 9% of its total income.^[114]

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.^[155] In one of his lastAdevărul pieces, titledAtacul guzganului rozaliu ("The Attack of the Pink Rat"), Popescu accused Hrebenciuc of having imposed his control on the newspaper during thelocal elections of 2004, when he allegedly pressured journalists not to criticize the PSD Mayor ofBacău,Dumitru Sechelariu.^[161] Also according to Popescu, Hrebenciuc had urged him and his colleagues to feature more negative and less positive coverage of the PSD rival andDemocratic Party candidateTraian Băsescu during thepresidential suffrage of November 2004.^[161]Atacul guzganului rozaliu also alleged that Ana-Maria Tinu had an understanding with the PSD politician, and her rebranding ofAdevărul was Hrebenciuc's attempt to undermine its political independence.^[161] According to writer and analystCristian Teodorescu, the "pink rat" label stuck, and Hrebenciuc's influence on the newspaper suffered as a result.^[159]

AlthoughGândul attracted a large following during a number of months, turning a profit in the first month,Adevărul survived the shock. A similar crisis with similar outcomes had affected its rivalEvenimentul Zilei in 2004, when the policies of new ownersRingier forced the resignation of editorCornel Nistorescu and the migration of many staff members towardCotidianul. Nicholson attributes the survival in both cases to the value of a well-established brand.^[155] In 2006, Ana-Maria Tinu sold her share of Adevărul Holding to one of Romania's richest entrepreneurs, theNational Liberal politicianDinu Patriciu, her move hotly contested by Tinu's son Andrei Iucinu, who looked set to gain a third of the stock andtrademark ownership upon the end of a trial.^[162] Patriciu's decisions, including his appointment of a new managerial team, were resisted byCorina Drăgotescu, who resigned and left the newspaper in November 2006.^[163]

According to data made available by theRomanian 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.^[164] In 2009, the minimum was at 81,388 and the maximum at 150,061.^[164] A 2009 article in the rival newspaperFinanciarul suggested thatAdevărul 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).^[162] However, by mid-2011, even as Romania's print media experienced major setbacks, the paper expanded in content and the holding enlarged its portfolio.^[165]

Despite the changes in attitude and management, some of the post-2000 editions ofAdevărul remained controversial for their nationalist claims. This was primarily the case of statements it made in regard to theRomani minority, over which it has been repeatedly accused ofantiziganism. In early 2002, the gazette reacted strongly against an advertisement for a soccer match between theRomania team and theFrance national team, where the former was being portrayed as a violinist.^[166]Adevărul saw this as an attempt to insult Romanians by associating them withRomani music, concluding: "Our French 'brothers' never stop offending us, and they seem to enjoy treating us like gypsies".^[166] A November 2008 article, which claimed to be based on a reportage piece first published inEl País, depicted Romani Romanians as a leading demographic group withinMadrid'sorganized crime networks.^[167][168] The article was condemned bycivil society observers, who uncovered thatAdevărul had modified and editorialized the original piece, which actually spoke of theRomanian immigrant population, without any mention of ethnicity.^[167][168] An analysis made by researchers Isabela Merilă and Michaela Praisler found that, in contrast toEvenimentul Zilei,Adevărul had asocially conservative bias in reporting on the rise ofRomanian hip hop, which it related to negative social phenomena (violence, drug use), and against which it favored a degree of censorship.^[169]

Colecția Adevărul, the post-2008 book collection issued with the newspaper, has itself been at the center of a controversy. Two trials were opened on charges ofplagiarism, after the collection issued works byLeo Tolstoy andVintilă Corbul, allegedly without respecting theauthorship rights of original translators.^[170] Another such conflict was sparked in April 2009, opposingColecția Adevărul toBiblioteca pentru toți ("Everyman's Library"), a similar book series issued by the rivals atJurnalul Național andEditura Litera. This came afterAdevărul went ahead ofBiblioteca pentru toți in reissuingGeorge Călinescu'sEnigma Otiliei novel.^{[170][171][172]} TheRomanian Academy'sGeorge Călinescu Institute, which claims the copyright to Călinescu's books, joined Editura Litera in a lawsuit againstAdevărul.^[172] In reply,Adevărul accusedJurnalul Național itself of having usurped theBiblioteca pentru toți brand, previously owned byEditura Minerva.^[170][171] It also spoke out againstAntena 1, a television station which, likeJurnalul Național, is owned byIntact Group, accusing it of mudslinging.^[171]

In the months leading up to the2009 presidential election,Adevărul launched a special nation-wideadvertising campaign, announcing that it was reducing to a minimum its coverage of the political scene and would not hostcampaign ads, directly appealing to people who were declaring themselves disgusted with the election process. The initiative was covered by journalist Gabriel Giurgiu in the cultural magazineDilema Veche, which is also part of the Adevărul Holding. Giurgiu's article was a mixed review: it argued that the reaction was understandable, but "regrettable", because it carried the risk of glamorizingvoter fatigue and depriving society of "a necessary burden."^[173]Hotnews.ro owner and columnistDan Tăpalagă placed this stance in connection to Dinu Patriciu's publicized adversity toward incumbent President Băsescu. In his view, Patriciu stood alongside Intact Group ownerDan Voiculescu andRealitatea-Cațavencu'sSorin Ovidiu Vântu as one of the "media moguls" working to prevent Băsescu' reelection. Alluding to the newspaper's promotional offers of cartoon classics onDVD and popular novels, Tăpalagă concluded: "[Adevărul] readers must be forcefully kept away from politics, perhaps kept busy withTom and Jerry. Forcefully saturated of politics, the citizen in Patriciu's dreams gobbles up the personal governments concocted together with Voiculescu and Vântu, reads approximate literature and watches animated cartoons."^[174]

However, similar criticism ofAdevărul was also voiced from within Realitatea-Cațavencu.Cornel Nistorescu, the new editor ofCotidianul, called the promotion "lobotomizing", and, contrary to Tapalagă, suggested that it had been induced by President Băsescu, to whom he attributed the power of ordering Patriciu's arrest on allegations ofwhite-collar crime: "It is as if Traian Băsescu had sent him the message: write one more line about me, and you'll be spending another week in the big house!"^[175] AnotherCotidianul contributor,Costi Rogozanu, referred to theAdevărul message as "a strange manipulation" and "a dangerous invitation to carelessness", noting that Romanian society was becoming divided between openly partisan media outlets and venues that avoided all mention of politics.^[176]

Additionally, the newspaper became focused on exploring the history of Romanian communism, and ran exposes on theCeaușescu family. This interest (seen by Rogozanu as obsessive)^[176] was criticized as sensationalist, particularly afterAdevărul circulated claims that the former dictator had been a youthful homosexual.^[177]

Several months after the elections, in mid-2010, the issue of editorial policies came up again, as a group of panelists walked out from the daily, citing worries that Dinu Patriciu was imposing his own agenda. Although initially supportive of this move, some, most notablyGrigore Cartianu,Ovidiu Nahoi andAdrian Halpert, revised their decision and stayed on withAdevărul.^[178]

Under new management,Adevărul also acquired a new core group of columnists, including Patriciu himself. The owner's opinion pieces illustrate his commitment tolibertarianism and thefree market, which have little echo inside his own National Liberal Party.^[165][179] The other authors stood for a wide range of opinions, including anti-Patriciu stances.^[165] In February 2011,Adevărul even hosted an extended political debate between Patriciu and another columnist, the former cabinet minister and Băsescu advisorAndrei Pleșu.^[180] In December, Pleșu gave up his column inAdevărul, citing the accumulated frustration of working under an (unnamed) editor.^[181] Romanian media pioneerIon Cristoiu made news in 2012, when he was in the unique position of writing for bothAdevărul and rivalEvenimentul Zilei.^[182]

In May 2011, Patriciu transferred 99.92% of Adevărul Holding stocks to another firm in his portfolio, Fast Europe Media N.V. (registered in theNetherlands).^{[183][184][185]} Patriciu himself justified the move as an opener of theCentral and Eastern European markets,^[183] but analysts have also seen in this an attempt to capitalize on theDutch corporate tax.^[184] The effects of theGreat Recession were felt throughout Romanian mass-media, putting a check onAdevărul growth, and stabilizing its circulation at some 30,000 copies per issue.^[186] An advertising campaign for the newspaper, managed through Patriciu's firm Odyssey Communication, failed to reverse that trend, and Odyssey itself registered for bankruptcy.^[186]

• Final Report of theInternational Commission on the Holocaust in Romania,Polirom, Iași, 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
• Lucian Boia,"Germanofilii". Elita intelectuală românească în anii Primului Război Mondial, Humanitas, Bucharest, 2010.ISBN 978-973-50-2635-6
• Maria Bucur,Eugenics and Modernization in Interwar Romania,University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 2002.ISBN 0-8229-4172-4
• (in Romanian) Lucian T. Butaru,Rasism românesc. Componenta rasială a discursului antisemit din România, până la Al Doilea Război Mondial, Editura Fundației pentru Studii Europene, Cluj-Napoca, 2010.ISBN 978-606-526-051-1
• Paul Cernat,Avangarda românească și 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", inDavid 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
• Adrian-Silvan Ionescu,Mișcarea artistică oficială în România secolului al XIX-lea, Noi Media Print, Bucharest, 2008.ISBN 978-973-180-518-4
• György Litván,A Twentieth-century Prophet: Oscar Jászi, 1875–1957,Central European University Press, Budapest, 2006.ISBN 963-7326-42-1
• Irina Livezeanu,Cultural Politics in Greater Romania,Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 2000.ISBN 0-8014-8688-2
• 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 Fundației Culturale Române, Bucharest, 1995.ISBN 973-9155-43-X
• Ioana Pârvulescu,Lumea ca ziar. A patra putere: Caragiale, Humanitas, Bucharest, 2011.ISBN 978-973-50-2954-8
• 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, Iași, 2005.ISBN 973-681-899-3
• Glenn E. Torrey, "Rumania's Decision to Intervene: Brătianu and the Entente, June–July 1916", inKeith Hitchins (ed.),Romanian Studies. Vol. 2, 1971–1972,Brill Publishers, Leiden, 1973, p. 3-29.ISBN 90-04-03639-3
• Cristian Vasile,Literatura și artele în România comunistă. 1948–1953, Humanitas, Bucharest, 2010.ISBN 978-973-50-2773-5
• Francisco Veiga,Istoria Gărzii de Fier, 1919–1941: Mistica ultranaționalismului, Humanitas, Bucharest, 1993.ISBN 973-28-0392-4
• George Voicu,"The 'Judaisation' of the Enemy in the Romanian Political Culture at the Beginning of the 20th Century", in theBabeș-Bolyai University'sStudia Judaica, 2007, p. 138-150

Wikimedia Commons has media related toAdevărul.

• Official website(in Romanian)
• "Adevărul"Archived 2011-06-05 at theWayback Machine, entry inCronologia della letteratura rumena moderna (1780–1914) databaseArchived 2021-10-18 at theWayback Machine, at theUniversity of Florence's Department of Neo-Latin Languages and Literatures(in Italian)

• Adevărul
• Newspapers established in 1871
• Newspapers published in Bucharest
• Newspapers published in Iași
• Romanian-language newspapers
• Socialist newspapers published in Romania
• Republicanism in the Kingdom of Romania
• Conservatism in Romania
• History of Bucharest
• 1871 establishments in Romania
• Romanian news websites

• Articles with Romanian-language sources (ro)
• Webarchive template wayback links
• Articles containing Romanian-language text
• Webarchive template archiveis links
• Articles with French-language sources (fr)
• CS1 Romanian-language sources (ro)
• All articles with dead external links
• Articles with dead external links from October 2016
• Articles with permanently dead external links
• Articles with short description
• Short description matches Wikidata
• Pages with Romanian IPA
• Commons category link from Wikidata
• Articles with Italian-language sources (it)