An American venture capitalist was heard to criticise Irish Ministers of late - not, as you might have expected, for interfering in business, but for failing to show an interest in one of the commercial struggles of the decade.
This unusual businessman was reported by my colleague, John McManus, to have been amazed at what looked like political indifference to the struggle for control of Eircom, and specifically the role of Sir Anthony O'Reilly in Valentia, one of the contending consortia.
His views were reported by McManus in a Business Opinion column on Monday under the heading "Eircom is much more than just a business".
The writer asked if it mattered which of the US-supported consortia, Denis O'Brien's or Sir Anthony O'Reilly's, gained control of Eircom.
His answer was that it did, because Eircom owns and will continue to own the bulk of the State's telecommunications infrastructure.
"The company", he adds, "is heavily regulated and must meet minimum standards, including universal coverage, which is a legacy of its past as a state-owned monopoly.
"What cannot be dictated by the State is the future development of the Eircom network, a key component of the Government's economic plans. Its growth will first and foremost have to fit with the new owner's requirement for a return on its investment of around 20 per cent a year."
As McManus points out, Eircom, "a strongly profitable, debt-free business", is about to become a private company "controlled by a small number of individuals who have borrowed €2 billion to buy it". The debt has to be serviced out of funds which could have been used for investment.
The venture capitalist quoted above spoke of Sir Anthony O'Reilly as someone "who dominates the print media and is a major player in cable television". He clearly found it odd that O'Reilly may now become a "key player in telecommunications" without a public debate.
The dominance of Independent News & Media in Ireland's newspaper industry is not, of course, in doubt. The group's strategists have taken every opportunity, from that presented by the collapse of the Irish Press to the Sunday Tribune's shortage of funds, to consolidate their position.
The collapse of the Irish Press, as Mr John Horgan writes in a contribution to Media and Marketplace (published by the Institute of Public Administration), refashioned the print media landscape in a dramatic way. But he warns conspiracy theorists against the notion that this or other developments were "planned in the evil empire of Middle Abbey Street".
He reported what had been achieved: the Independent group now owned the country's largest-selling indigenous newspapers in the daily, evening and Sunday categories, held a 50 per cent share holding in the joint venture Irish Star and controlled the Sunday Tribune.
Not only that: the group owns Newspread, the biggest newspaper distributor in the country; 10 local weekly papers covering the eastern, south-eastern and south-western counties; the (London) Independent, the (London) Independent on Sunday and the Belfast Telegraph.
This state of affairs was seldom questioned either by politicians or by the industry in Ireland. The argument which appeared to carry most weight when the issue was raised was based on a defensive strategy.
THE Irish industry, it ran, was always liable to be attacked by predatory outsiders. So it needed a strong group to act as its main line of defence. But, as Mr Horgan wryly points out, a similar defensive strategy did not work for Irish Distillers: it became a trophy for which British and French companies competed. In any event, a big group is as likely to attract as to repel predators.
This does not answer the question raised by the American quoted by John McManus. Nor does it let politicians who may be worried by the prospect of debating the affairs of Eircom and the Independent group off the hook.
It is clear that questions about Sir Anthony O'Reilly's role in Valentia and potential role in Eircom will have to be answered sooner or later. This is bound to lead to some dazzling legal footwork and heady argument about the rules applied to interests in different media.
Cases heard by regulatory authorities are invariably reduced to complex technical argument. It is clear that our Competition Authority still needs more power and greater resources to meet challenges which other regulators, outside and inside the EU, have been facing for some time.
In the case of telecommunications, for instance, it is necessary to distinguish between content and distribution.
A detailed Bill has been promised. It should be presented to the Dail as soon as possible after the recess. For this is essentially a political question, however technical, about the protection of the public interest.
In the end there is a tantalising issue as to what limitations may properly be placed on the rich or super-rich whose writ runs over a wide range of media and gives them access to the public at large.
Two names spring to mind. They are Rupert Murdoch and Silvio Berlusconi.