Dinu Patriciu"s pearls of wisdom

An interview published Thursday by România Liberă and "copy/pasted" in the Friday edition of Adevărul proves that architect Dinu Patriciu is continuously undergoing a professional reconversion, going from tutoring for the admission to the University of Architecture, to speculating ownership certificates back in the day, Liberal politics and wisdom on real estate, going through the practice and metaphysics of oil to the philosophy of the freedom of the media and the exertion of the freedom of expression - a kind of "Homo Universalis" typical for Romania"s period of transition into God knows what that we are living in.

The vastness of his interests excuses his little conceptual slip ups.

The rest of us, the narrow-minded, whose only expertise is the press, can"t do anything more than to pick up the crumbs from this spiritual feast of business wisdom.

"I now represent a media group, which is trying to build an image of independence and objectivity," said Dinu Patriciu, in the interview published in his own newspaper, just after, a little higher, he very clearly said: "I am a member of the National Liberal Party and always will be. But I am not at liberty to express an opinion, to avoid harming the position of the media group that I lead".

Patriciu not only represents a media group, he also leads it.

Still, the impressum of the "Adevărul" contains no mention of his name.

Not as CEO, not as managing director, not as driver, not as cleaner.

Perhaps he is the chairman of Adevărul Holding SRL ?...

Well, no. The impressum of the Adevărul daily lists the management of this limited liability holding, and again, the name of Dinu Patriciu is omitted.

Well.

It wouldn"t be the first time - Sorin Ovidiu Vântu also claimed he wasn"t involved in his media business?

There is however, a certain difference between Vîntu and Patriciu: the true face of the former was only revealed when the transcripts of his discussions with his team were made public.

But "Homo Universalis" shows his true colors by himself: "I don"t get involved in the editorial policy of the group and I am only responsible for what I write."

So let"s recap:

1. He leads the press group, but he does not get involved in its editorial policy;

2. He represents the press group, but he only takes responsibility for what he writes.

"Homo Universalis" contradicts himself from one paragraph to the next.

Now we understand why his name doesn"t show up in the impressum - he leads and he represents, but he has no responsibility.

And while probably still taking no responsibility, "Homo Universalis" also imparts his wisdom on the independence of the press:

"It"s become a cliché to say that the press should be independent. But this concept of independence of the press is relative".

No, Mr. Patriciu, for an intellectual of your stature, you"re making an inexcusable confusion: the notion of "independent press" makes as much sense as the idea that unicorns exists - none.

The press is financially dependent, it is dependent on the political regime, it is dependent in every aspect, from the value and the qualification level of the people involved in its operations, all the way to its readers.

What "Homo Universalis" is trying to say, except he is not wording it properly, since the only thing he can grasp is money, is that the press could be impartial, at least to an extent, but even that impartiality is relative.

The fact that "Homo Universalis" can"t get his notions right, resurfaces al throughout the interview - for instance, the reporter, overwhelmed by the flow of incoherent ideas of the interviewee, sheepishly asks him: "Do you mean that the press can"t influence public opinion?", and he promptly receives the following jumbled answer:

"It can, but only if it is objective, if it can stand on its own two feet, if it is independent from the political factions, even though the press itself has a certain ideology of its own".

But Mr. architect, what exactly are you referring to when you admit that the media could be "objective"?

Do you mean in a physical sense?

OK, I"ll concede, its physical existence is objective; but if that is the case, why do you say that its objectivity depends on its independence?, (the latter being a pipe dream no matter how one looks at it).

Mr. Patriciu, did you ever hear of the "objective / subjective" pair?

Is the press a product of objectivity or of subjectivity?

Can you realize that the press is subjective by its nature and by definition?

Sounds confusing, doesn"t it?

Let"s clarify.

The thing is that, when you say "objectivity", what you are thinking of is "impartiality" again.

It"s true, objectivity is sometimes used with the meaning of "objectivity" as in fairness, but as a secondary meaning - its main, conceptual meaning is another: "OBJECTÍVE - Which exists outside the human consciousness and independent from it".

When there is a peril of thinking that the press could exist outside the human consciousness and independent from it, one would be better off using the notion of impartiality.

And what"s more, Mr. Patriciu, your discourse was supposed to be high-level theory, instead, the confusions it makes make it unworthy for someone of such alleged intellectual stature.

The above is just a small lesson.

A lesson in journalism, for an architect with an itchy pen.

A lesson you get for free ...

• POST SCRIPTUM

The article above does not even touch the biggest nonsense of the answers of Dinu Patriciu. Which is printed below, in his answer to the question that he was asked:

"Does the editorial policy have to go through you first?

D.P. - No, what we"re talking about here is trade and editorial policies. They have a natural connection between them, which makes the commercial policy override the editorial policy. That is how things are all over the world, the press is a business, so commercial policies have an influence on editorial policies."

We"ll let the readers sift through the deluge of confusions and jumbled logic of Dinu Patriciu"s thought process.

Which I will be happy to comment on upon request.