Full Text: Li Datong's Memo

At the recently completed national reporters conference, I heard that you imparted to the journalists your teachings on "news planning." Some years ago, Zhenghou in Henan built a large highway overpass. Local officials wanted to make an appearance in the People's Daily. "Nationally there are thousands of overpasses. Why should Zhengzhou's make the front page of the People's Daily?" This was impossible. At the time, you were a reporter for People's Daily in Henan. So you "planned" for fifty 50 year-old couples to tour the overpass. Of course, this "news" appeared on the cover of the People's Daily. (Did you write it too?) You were very pleased with your creation, and said it received praise from then Henan Provincial Committee secretary Li Changchun. Perhaps, you believe that this is how a party paper operates. With regard to ideas like this, I have nothing to say. I can only tell you, I have worked at this paper for 26 years, and have never heard of such an event. If I knew beforehand that a reporter planned to "create news," according to the principles of this paper, not only would this "news" be suppressed, but the reporter's prestige would also be damaged beyond redemption.

In your speech upon taking post as editor-in-chief, you spoke of your personal experiences in managing newspapers as editor-in-chief. You said that you need to be "good at writing self-criticisms." This demonstrates that you completely understand the articles that readers appreciate will sometimes or even frequently receive criticism from your superiors. Being good at writing self-criticisms means being good at dealing with this criticism. This sounded like an expert talking. It accurately reflected the dilemma of Chinese journalists, especially those working for party papers, when readers and officials have the exact opposite reaction to the same report. The directors of every department enthusiastically applauded that speech and your declaration.

In only eight months, you made a 180 degree turn. In this national journalists conferences you said, "From now on reporters will no longer be secretly happy when writing self-criticisms for official criticism! The praise of leaders at every level is the standard of good reporting." These two statements are completely opposite -- which is the real you? Did you know that before the conference ended, journalists were coming to editors of frequently critcal sections, apologizing and pledging not to write any more critical articles? Did you know that many local reporters told us that this was the "most depressing" and "most disappointing" national reporters conference? Some reporters told me they received "warnings" before coming to the conference: "Don't speak." Who ordered them under what pretext to "shut their mouths"? Is this all supposed to be normal?

Not long ago, there was an "incident" at the newspaper. It was called an incident because it resulted in a document from the editorial committee. The spearhead was pointed at photo editor He Yanguang's choice of words in criticizing an article by an editorialist. One of the traditions of the China Youth Daily is frequent and free internal criticism and counter-criticism. Editors and reporters can witness battle between all kinds of different opinions and make their own decisions. This is a secondary function, however. An atmosphere of open debate is most important. This atmosphere makes people honest and straightforward, and keeps them away from dark and secretive behavior. It is a treasured spiritual resource for a national newspaper. I once took this paper's top notch debater, assistant editor-in-chief Chen Xiaochuan, as my opponent. Next to his "big character poster" criticizing Freezing Point, I posted my own "big character poster." Within the paper, this was not out of the ordinary, not unlike postings on the Internet. It never influenced our relationship. However, this time a small thing became an "incident." The editorial board for the first time released an "official document" on free debate inside the paper. The document used distortion and disregard for facts to deny He Yanguang's opinion. This set a very bad precedent. The purpose of this document was clear: Do you still want to freely express criticism? Think about it for a moment first!

In He Yanguang's critical post he actually only raised two points: "General Secretary Hu Jintao's memo is like a lighthouse pointing the way for university students to advance" etc. offers grounds to believe that this is suspiciously like a personality cult, like words from the "Cultural Revolution." He Yanguang's posting did not criticize the entire editorial. On the contrary, he told me and colleagues in the editorial department that this kind of editorial could be written well, but it should not use that kind of Cultural Revolution personality cult speech. This criticism is clearly correct. The party constitution and intra-party regulations offer clear basis for this judgment. Undoubtedly, everyone in the paper beside members of the editorial board would agree with He Yanguang's criticism. Even the editorialists themselves do not dissent. Editor of the editorial section Li Fang said, "If we write those kinds of expressions, we are cutting off our own hands!" This incident provides food for thought. The criticized person accepts the criticism, and is even glad for it. However, the commentator is criticized in a document from the leadership. The document flatly ignores whether the criticism was correct or not, instead meddling where it should not, criticizing the commentator's speech as inappropriate. All this time, the two parties involved were still in honest discussion via phone and email!

Speaking of resisting personality cults, here is a story. The classic news photograph,"Hello, Xiaoping" was taken by He Yanguang. That night it was sent to the editor-in-chief's office after hours. The first reaction of Wei Fang'ai, the person in charge of the editor-in-chief's office, was "it can't be published." His reason was, "Isn't this a personality cult?" After repeated clarifications that this was a news photo taken by a university student, the editor-in-chief cautiously placed it on the fourth page, giving it just two columns. This shows us the seriousness of this paper's vigilance against contributing to a personality cult. But no one will deny, this is the culture of the China Youth Daily. By coincidence, during the 15th congress of the Youth League the paper published a special edition. It wanted to publish a large photo of Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao along with members of the youth league. Couldn't the professional editors at this paper handle that well enough? But Zhao Yong was anxious. Afterwards the night shift told me that he unexpectedly came himself to look at the size of these two photos, again and again pondering where to put them. The dignified Youth League Central Secretary was suddenly was willing to become a section editor. No previous secretaries have ever done this job before.

Comparing the two, shouldn't the editorial board headed by you reflect whether it should have published the criticism of the critic? How did the editorial board "reach consensus"? What kind historical record is this for the newspaper? We feel that this added an insulting and shameful new page to the cultural history of China Youth Daily.

As this non-incident was continuing, editorials editor Li Fang decided to leave the paper, leaving the Youth Topic section that he personally created and carefully tended, leaving the section with the most "public influence." And this was originally his "own son"! After a period of time, he cried, had nightmares, and after seeing the editorial committee's document finally make his decision. A few days earlier he came to my office to tell me, "there will be some explanations and settling of accounts." I was still guessing what would be "settled" -- it was this all along!

Before this, in an editorial section meeting, Li Fang was asked to find the editor-in-chief to clarify limits to the conscience and shame of this newspaper's editorialists. In pain, he sought you out. What was your reply? You did not patiently listen to the pained statement of a section editor. You did not discuss with him as equals how to perfect the editorials of China Youth Daily, or how to prevent the appearance of stale language and thinking like "lighthouse" that makes news colleagues and readers ridicule us. Instead you said, "The values of China Youth Daily are your values!" Left unspoken was, "My values are the values of the China Youth Daily." Furthermore, your tone of voice left no room for discussion. So what if he disagreed? Now we know. What kind of home a section editor of the China Youth Daily gives to his conscience. He told publisher Wang Hongyou, "I can't be Zhao Yong's dog!"

This sentence is destined to be written into the newspaper's history. He was the first department editor to leave this paper in a fury for a good reason. It shows that he was a real man. But no one can deny that he was forced to leave. This paper's leaders did not give him any room to maintain his own moral integrity. We were suddenly unable to keep this talented, gentle and reasonable colleague. It is a great humiliation and a mockery of the paper. We must think with a feeling of impending crisis: How many coworkers with a sense of shame and limits to their conscience will be forced to follow in Li Fang's footsteps?

One thing is for certain: Recently the atmosphere at this paper has been abnormal. Fewer and fewer people are willing to speak up. There is a feeling of insecurity, and everyone is keeping quiet to protect themselves. All kinds of irresponsible rumors and slander spread like wildfire, and a vulgar, cynical atmosphere is starting to creep in. The editorial board minutes always say "unanimously believe." Public notices always offer praise and self-praise. Even the "Thank you notes" sent from provincial departments after the completion of some propaganda assignment are published. It is as if they've never been seen before. Now it's better. This kind of praise will fall like snowflakes after these regulations are implemented -- there's money to be had! What kind of guidance is this?

After returning from your first time judging the China journalism prize as the editor-in-chief of this paper, you explained at an office meeting how you maneuvered between various groups to get certain prizes for this paper, and to this end you even gave the luxury cigarettes that someone gave you to another group's leader. You joked that you committed "bribery." You were confused why no one at the paper made anything of receiving the Chinese news "grand prize." Twice at the meeting you asked everyone to "start placing importance on this," "professional evaluations will be based on this, it is hardware..."

Normally, we would place great importance on receiving the highest level "appraisal of news colleagues." It allows us to discover our problems and also receive honors when deserved. But a few years after these awards were established, it was impossible to respect them. It was not only because they are determined by "official position" (media groups of higher administrative rank are allocated more prizes) but also that after a short time it degenerates into a "great balancing act." The host paper needs to guarantee some prizes; other media also have the honor of being the best, and everybody has something to be proud of. Old Xu was once a senior committee member. I had never heard him describe the evaluation process publicly or privately. After returning he simply reported the results. It was not worth talking about. Were it not for your vivid description, I would not have known that these prizes had already fallen to such depths. It has plainly become a set of secret transactions, with a few little plots and schemes on top. How can the prizes that come from such "evaluations" be respected? Why don't you think the evaluations of readers can be "harder" hardware for professional evaluations? Which newspaper won the welcome and the wallets of readers by winning the most official prizes?

After you assumed the role of editor-in-chief, some new scenery appeared in our office meetings. It was "News Commentary" that you read to us yourself, often the entire text, in rich and clear tones. Now you have openly written the praise and criticism of the censors into the regulations for rewarding and punishing our journalists. Which document from Party Central or the Central Propaganda Department authorizes the news review and commentary group to hold such a powerful position? There is none! These people are just ordinary employees of the Central Propaganda Department. Their commentary is simply their personal opinions. What virtues and abilities, and what special experiences and scholarly achievements do they possess that their political standards are regarded more highly than the seasoned editors of any of the big central news organizations, such that they have the authority to pass final judgment on their work?

Originally, the comments of the news review and commentary group were just a normal part of intra-party life. If it comes with a sincere attitude to help others, with ample facts in support, and makes reasonable and correct criticisms, then we should learn from it. But if this criticism is completely groundless, ideologically ossified, out-of-context, full of sophistry, stigmatizing, attacking (sadly, most criticisms are of these kinds) then the recipient of criticism can act according to the rights and channels in internal party regulations and the party constitution, and raise a counter-criticism. This is a reflection of normal party life. But today, the personal opinions of members of the news review and commentary group have become like the Sword of Damascus hanging over the heads of every media organization. Who knows when a memo from some leading comrade will make it fall! (Who in the Central Propaganda Department or central leadership has time and energy to compare the original texts?) In reality, even if the leader of a criticized newspaper does not submit to these "comments," they seldom protest according to internal party regulations, because this will be thought of as "contradicting one's superiors," and thereupon, all intra-party democratic regulations become meaningless.

In light of the frequency of these dispatches -- nearly every week you can get two or three -- they have become just like the imperial sword to guide news agencies. An abnormal situation has arisen. News agencies have begun to curry favor with, use connections to and entertain the news review and commentary group. Perhaps they are also preparing some luxurious gifts. Frequently the editor-in-chief and publisher are invited along as guests, hoping that they know the formula to get leniency: less criticism and more praise. To put it crudely, this is a new species of corruption in the party.

Not long after arriving here, you entertained a member of the news review and commentary group. If you were thinking only of the "safety" of the paper, then this would have been understandable. (You spent the money earned by the blood and sweat of this newspaper's employees.) However, now we can see that you took their personal ideas and wrote them into the guidelines for rewarding and punishing editors and reporters, submissively granting them absolute power over the achievements of these journalists. Based on what? Who has the right to give them this power? Do you? Does the editorial board ? Did the party committee discuss it? I don't think it has. It is too absurd; it has no foundation in party regulations or national law. It severely infringes on the legal rights of these journalists.

The news review and commentary group has another tool besides criticism. They can also issue praise whenever they want. In this abnormal party life, this has become a "resource" in the promotion of newspaper managers. For the motive of personal political gain, there will always be some people who scramble for this "praise" and even trade in favors for it. I have already heard a rumor that some leader of the news office in the Central Propaganda Department is your classmate from university, and some praise for this paper was in fact written by employees of this paper and then handed over to the Central Propaganda Department for publication. I do not dare to believe this is true. I would rather it were just a rumor. Even worse, if "letters of praise" from provincial bureaus are written by the people involved, stamped and sent back, what kind of terrible "transactions" will take place under this system of rewards? Will this kind of thing absolutely not happen? Unfortunately, I have also heard this kind of rumor. I cannot investigate the accuracy of these rumors, but the editorial board has a responsibility to sort this out. If true, it should be sternly punished. If untrue, then it should be made clearer. These rumors are filling the newspaper like poison gas, making it hard to tell the good from the bad, vilifying people...

There is much left to say about the new assessment regulations, such as numerous problems in the technicalities and details, but these are not the core problems. The core problems are those of value orientation, and standards of judgment. They will enslave and emasculate and vulgarize the China Youth Daily. As an old editor who has given 26 of his best years to the China Youth Daily, representing all colleagues in my department and many in other departments who share my opinions, I earnestly request that the party committee and editorial board change the foundation and core of these assessment regulations. If you insist on doing things your own way, the decline of the China Youth Daily will come to pass within two or three years. Who would like to see that outcome? Who can take responsibility for that outcome? Who wants go down in this paper's history as its sinner?!

In the face of these assessment regulations, we cannot be silent. We must openly express our opinions. Every colleague who identifies with the values of the China Youth Daily has no excuse to remain silent. This is our right, and it is a tradition we depend upon to do our work and make a living. To remain silent is to sink into degradation. To remain silent is to allow the glorious China Youth Daily to die before us...

Li Datong

August 15, 2005