Full Text: Li Datong's Memo

Translated by Post Researcher Greg Distelhorst in Beijing
Saturday, February 18, 2006 11:36 AM

The following letter was posted by Li Datong on his newspaper's computer system on Aug. 15, 2005:

A Letter to Editor-in-Chief Li Erliang and the Editorial Board On the New Evaluation Regulations at China Youth Daily

Editor-in-chief Li Erliang and the current editorial board :

This week you assigned each news department in the newspaper to collect opinions on the new assesment rules, all to be completed within one week. On August 20, they were to be implemented accordingly. Even though at the time not a single department director had seen them, the minutes of the editorial board meeting stated that the committee had already approved the plan. Talking to itself, it added, "Its guidance is clear, principles plain, regulations distinct, with extensive coverage, and possessing strong focus and usability," and other fulsome praise. This demonstrates that you and the editorial board were not prepared to seriously discuss and amend these regulations that touch upon the news work of the China Youth Daily, the basic standards of journalistic evaluation at the paper, and the interests of all employees at the paper. The so-called collection of opinions was undoubtedly just to let everyone haggle over how many "points" they can get.

Supposedly, most of the editorial board first learned of the goals and details of these guidelines just before the meeting began. If these weighty and detailed regulations were passed in a trifling, two-to-three-hour meeting, it could be called a management miracle. I also learned that these regulations are practically your own masterpiece, "very different" from the document drafted by assistant publisher Wen Xin after a great deal of research. Certainly, you made large qualitative changes to the "Wen Xin Plan." Equally astounding, party group secretary Wang Hongyou, who bears complete responsibility for the management of this newspaper, was not present at the high-level discussion of these important guidelines. Unexpectedly, it did not require his participation.

On the afternoon of Monday, August 8, these regulations were posted on our internal network. When the paper's employees had a first look at its pretty face, it caused a mighty uproar. Because I was busy preparing articles, I had no time to examine them in detail. When we finished publishing on Wednesday, and the departments began discussing them, I finally began to carefully review these regulations. After carefully reading them, my shock and indignation were difficult to express...

The first part of the core of these regulations is regarding the standards for evaluating this newspaper. It is not set according to Marxism's journalistic principles and the basic aims of the party; nor is it set according to spirit of General Secretary Hu Jintao -- "Power is for the people to use; benefits are for the people to seek; feelings are connected to the people." Nor is it set according to whether the great readership is satisfied, but rather the standards are forced to depend upon the likes and dislikes of a small number of higher organs and officials. The second part uses the giving and withholding of rewards to completely destroy the journalistic values of the China Youth Daily, a paper with fine traditions in the newspaper industry. The people of the China Youth Daily have traditionally promoted social development, protected social justice and the interests of the masses, had great enthusiasm for promoting reform and abhorred corrupt officials and all kinds of corruption in society. They have diligently transmitted meaningful thoughts and taken historical responsibility with a clear ideology. Now they have been debased by this weekly scheme, with workers wrangling for to get "points" for themselves. Because the number of people who can receive points is extremely limited, the real power is not held by some third party that ensures an "impartial process," nor is it held by the readership, but rather by decision of superior officials at every level. This will unavoidably create a malignant situation of servility to superior officials, as well as open and secret struggles within departments.

Without doubt, the enslavement and vulgarization of the employees of the China Youth Daily is being implemented, systematically and according to conventional procedures, under your leadership (in the name of the editorial committee). Now, it will finally be written boastfully into the assessment document -- and this is a rare and systematic document attempting to completely subvert the spirit and values of the China Youth Daily.

Let's look at some of its clauses!

Awarding points:

(3) In the monthly readers' survey, the authors of the top three most frequently read articles will receive 50 points per article. For fourth through tenth, each author will receive thirty points per article.

(4) In the monthly readers' survey, the top three most frequently read sections will receive 50 points. From fourth to tenth, starting with 30 points, each will receive three points less.

(5) If an article receives a memo of praise from leaders in the Secretariat of the Communist Youth League Central Committee, add 80 points.

(6) If an article receives a memo of praise from leaders in the Central Propaganda Department, add 120 points. For receiving special praise in the Central Propaganda Department's "News Commentary," add 100 points. If mentioned for praise in "News Commentary," add 50 points.

(7) If an article receives a memo of praise from the committee of a national ministry or provincial leaders, add 100 points. If it receives a letter of praise from a ministry or a provincial committee, add 80 points.

(8) If an article receives a memo of praise from the central leadership (Politburo members and higher), add 300 points.

Starting with clause (5), if an article is praised, the editor responsible for that section receives a prize of 30 percent of the points.

Subtracting points:

(6) For (5) through (8) in "Awarding points," articles receiving criticism will use these standards for deducting points.

Looking at these regulations, I couldn't believe my eyes. An article or a section can only receive 50 points for receiving the highest rating by readers, but just for praise of some official the least it can receive is 80, and the highest is 300! As if this wasn't enough to make an impression on editors and reporters, in the "subtracting points" clauses, it especially adds that if criticized by these different levels of officials, points will be "deducted." What does this mean? This means that no matter how much work you put into a report, no matter how difficult the investigation, how fine the writing, there is still the chance that you will face a life and death crisis. (Aren't reporters already attacked frequently for exposing the truth?) No matter how strongly readers praise an article, if it makes some official unhappy, and receives a couple sentences of "criticism" then not only is all your labor for naught, but the prestige of the paper is for naught, and it goes without saying that the opinion of the readers is worth less than a fart. And you still need to pay money for this -- a month's salary might not even be enough!

Under this arbitrary and meaningless arrangement, what sane journalist would choose to write public interest reports? By coincidence, the most basic function of mainstream media, representing social conscience and justice, seeking justice for the weak and disadvantaged, which cannot be replaced by other organizations in society -- media monitoring -- is not mentioned once in these regulations. This cannot be explained by "overlooked", it has been intentionally omitted!

Besides small daily rewards, there is also a "special reward" from the editor-in-chief. This could be considered a "grand" prize -- you can win up to 20,000 yuan. What is deserving of such a huge prize? The rules are below:

(1) "The top three in Section A" Ha. Section A is controlled by the editor-in-chief. "The top eight in overall points." What is this encouraging? Articles with independent discoveries, deep investigations and superior writing are produced in lower quantities, have greater value to the fame of the paper and contribute more to fighting for readership. Is this paper lacking in ephemeral junk articles?

(2) Not surprisingly, this is about receiving "praise" from different leaders. The more praise, the greater the reward.

(3) "Outstanding fulfillment of duties in important interviews arranged by the editorial committee." Everyone knows that this is referring to classic propaganda, and mandated reports like the National People's Congress and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conferences. Which newspaper relies on this to "increase the influence of the brand"? Why should this article enjoy status of not being subject to competition, often given a specific date of publication and important position in the paper? As to whether anyone actually read it, no one cares. (If this referred to complicated cases of watchdog journalism that require the cooperation of many people and directions from related leaders at the scene, such as the "Cao County #1 Middle School" case of fraud on the high school exam, then I wholeheartedly agree!)

(4) "Encountering relatively great risks during interview and overcoming hardship to successfully finish an assignment." Thank goodness. If this is not especially referring to car accidents, this kind of report overlaps with some watchdog journalism reports. But when taken with the above regulations it is paradoxical. Critical articles frequently rouse the ire of the leaders of monitored agencies, even their direct criticism. (The likelihood is certainly no less than 50 percent. There are also 40 percent that will be "PRed" or "shot" to death before publication.) In this case, should we give an award or "deduct points"? It goes without saying most of the time it will be the latter. Being neither rewarded nor punished would be terribly lucky! If an article receives the highest evaluation of readers and draws a reaction from society, but also receives criticism from some superior official, according to this regulation how should we deal with it? If by some act of goodwill the two set each other off, the relevant reporter and editor are still doomed to be deducted...

In this letter, I did not mean to discuss the technical issues of the regulations line-by-line. (Even though they are filled with unreasonable, impractical and inappropriate things, such as not distinguishing between a 600-700 word "news brief" and a 4000-5000 word investigative report. Many reporters and editors whose articles are all "A-level" will be necessarily unable to complete their assignments. Listing the clauses above was because they are the core and value orientation of these assessment guidelines. These clauses present a large problem: Where is the future of the China Youth Daily? Will it survive or perish?

Ever since you took a position at this paper, the sentence "We are a paper of the Party and the Communist Youth League Central organs" rang in my ears at every meeting. Our ears all grew calluses. At a section editors meeting, you even said the menacing sentence, "You should be clear about what you are doing." Perhaps in your opinion, the professional backbone of the China Youth Daily had never figured out what they were doing. They never knew that this was a paper of the Party and the Communist Youth League Central organs. Now, you want to give us an earful in class. Teaching us a class isn't enough. You want to design a set of strict "rules." Haha. It's not that I want to punish you; it's "working according to the rules."

During your speech when you first took your position at this paper, you sounded sincere when you said that the China Youth Daily was a paper with outstanding traditions, high prestige, great social influence, and a group of well-trained and high-quality editors and reporters, and that you hoped to, "quickly be integrated into this group." This was very moving to everyone, including elder editors like myself throughout the paper. We all held great hope for you. We hoped that you would quickly comprehend the strong traditions of this paper, quickly make concerted efforts with us to face competition in the market and maintain and improve the brand of the paper. But what do we see today? You are not working hard to "integrate" but rather to completely remake this newspaper. In these regulations written by you personally, the future of the China Youth Daily is already abundantly clear: It will tragically drift towards becoming another Guangming Daily, with nothing left of its social influence and its circulation falling to unbearably low numbers, half dead. That was once a paper that took the lead in the great discussion of standards of truth. In the 1980s, it was once a paper that opened people's eyes!

We are not so naïve as to think that this is a product of your personal will. It goes without saying that you are an executor, but you execute the order without any compunction, with several inventions, actively, and consolidating your moves at every step. Your goal is the rapid transformation of the China Youth Daily into the ideal institutional newspaper of the Secretariat of the Communist Youth League Central Committee. This kind of institutional newspaper has only one special characteristic: It must unconditionally create conditions for the promotion of "me". Any report that damages these conditions should be wiped out!

I came to this paper in 1979, 26 years ago. I have experienced the reform process that began with the 13th plenary session. I have personally experienced the style of the Youth League Secretaries: Comrades Hu Qili, Wang Zhaoguo, Hu Jintao, Song Defu and Li Keqiang. They all often came to the newspaper, gave speeches or walked into the editorial department to chat. When comrade Qili was a member of the Politburo Standing Committee, he would come to the paper to get opinions and have an honest exchange with those of us who had spent many years doing news and propaganda work. When comrade Chen Haosu was in charge of this paper, in order to understand the entire process of printing a paper, he would work winter nights with the editors wrapped in a cotton overcoat, until the paper left the printer in the early hours of the next day. When comrade Zhaoguo took the post as the first secretary of the Communist Youth League Central Committee (I had just finished a long conversation and interview with him at the China #2 Automotive Plant) he came to the newspaper especially to see the reporters who participated in the national journalists conference. He crowded into the meeting room to charm everyone. Every New Year's Eve, comrade Jintao comes to the newspaper to see everyone and have a conversation with the department editors to get opinions. After the conference he insists on going to the cafeteria to see the kitchen staff.

During the dual meetings in the early '80s, at around five or six in the evening I got an order from the paper to immediately interview representatives from the China Youth League at the CPPCC. I was asked to submit an article by 10 pm. At this time comrade Jintao, (at the time a standing secretary of League Central) lived next door to me. I knocked and was let in to explain my reason for calling on him. Comrade Jintao suggested that I interview lower-level comrades, but I told him that the newspaper selected him for an interview. "Today, whether you want to speak or not, you will have to speak." Comrade Jintao heard this and immediately accepted the interview. He understood the special nature of journalism. At that time, I was just a common reporter who had recently entered the industry. He did not resist at all this direct request for an interview.

When the Communist Youth League Central Committee was preparing to announce the first May 4th prize, they had decided on Qin Wengui of the Xinjiang oilfields. Before this, they wanted his deeds to be well-known by all. As the league's paper, the China Youth Daily was duty-bound to take the lead in reporting on this advanced character. According to relations between different levels of officials, the Secretariat of the Communist Youth League Central Committee just needed to give an order to the newspaper. But how did comrade Keqiang do it? One day, the newspaper received a surprising notice for the standing assistant editor-in-chief and I to go to the Youth League Secretariat to have a meeting. How could a common editor attend such a meeting? It was because the Secretariat thought that Freezing Point's profiles were the most outstanding. They wanted the editor responsible present to discuss how to report on Qin. On that day, the standing secretary comrade Liu Peng hosted the meeting. He said: "Datong, you are an expert. We will listen to your thoughts on how to publicize this model..." What kind of leadership style was this? Originally, as Freezing Point was in section eight, it had never taken the duty of propaganda, but comrade Liu Peng modestly was seeking advice. I could only frankly and thoroughly explain my opinions. I bluntly informed him: "The conditions for making a stir like Zhang Haidi have already passed. Readers want to read about characters that they can relate to, not 'look up to' advanced characters. As soon as you report 'tall, big and perfect' the readers will be turned off." Liu Peng indirectly asked me whether Freezing Point's journalists could support this publicity campaign. Even though I believed that this report was not my duty, I still sent the best reporter from Freezing Point. This Freezing Point report broke onto the front page as a headline. Afterwards, reports about Qin Wengui appeared everywhere. Some years later, a China Youth Daily reporter asked Qin Wengui which article made him most satisfied. He answered, "That one by the Freezing Point reporter." This was not the result of an order. Under that work style of the leadership, we were happy to do it.

Once Keqiang came to the newspaper to find the editor-in-chief. Passing by my office, he came in to say, "Datong, your Freezing Point has become quite popular!" I joked with him, "You have to attend to the affairs of state. You still have time to read Freezing Point?" "I read every issue. Sometimes I even write memos on the newspaper itself" he replied. In the current leadership of the Youth League Secretariat, has one person even once talked with editors of the paper face to face?

When League Central secretary Jiang Daming was in charge of the newspaper, he was once found in his office crying. He was reading a report in Freezing Point, and crying for the fate of a boy in the article. When I heard this described to me, I was deeply moved. This shows that the secretaries of League Central, even though they were the superiors of the paper, still read the paper and were moved by its articles as ordinary readers were. This is a reflection of human nature, not "official nature."

Which of the old editors can't tell a few stories like this about the old Youth League Central secretaries? The editors-in-chief know even more. Comrade Ji Bingxuan was once in charge of this paper. Even after he took the post as Vice-Minister of Propaganda, when the old editors in chief would often seek his advice he would always immediately let his secretary find time and never declined a request. When comrade Hu Chunhua was in charge, a very influential report in Freezing Point suffered a counterattack from a certain provincial committee. The provincial committee first secretary personally signed and sent a report indicting this paper to three party central ministries. This newspaper seemed to face an extinction crisis, but after looking at the full and accurate materials handed in by our reporter, comrade Chunhua declared, "It looks like we have to fight to the finish!" And this was his home province! After several encounters, no matter whether it was within the party or brought to the courts, the paper never lost. If comrade Chunhua had even the slightest consideration for his "official fortune" or if he didn't trust and respect the professional standards of this paper's reporters, would he have such an opinion?

These are the actions and attitudes of past League Central Secretariats and managing secretaries towards this paper. I have been at this paper for many years, and not a single reporter has ever thought or spoke the words that we were not a paper of the Party and the Youth League. On the contrary, former secretaries continued in the style of comrade Yaobang. They never gave crude orders, highly respected the internal rules to the conduct of journalism, made allowances for the difficulties of this paper, meticulously guided and cherished this paper and took the most responsibility for it. Who would deny that this was the time of greatest prestige for the China Youth Daily, and at the same time, that it belonged to the Communist Youth League?

The China Youth Daily did not develop in a vacuum. It was under the influence of the democratic style of comrade Yaobang, the correct leadership of past League Central Secretariats, and through the collected efforts of everyone from editor-in-chief to ordinary reporters that this newspaper could become a "prestigious, socially influential and reliable" newspaper. As a party paper, it is the most popular among readers. It is precisely this sense of honor that drives many reporters and editors to serve the paper for their whole lives. Many graduates from university journalism departments take pride in having the good fortune to find a post in this paper. We understand that party and institutional papers were created under the special conditions of war. After the founding the new country, this system persisted, but financial allocations, employee salaries and state subscriptions to the paper mostly come from the taxpayers contributions. Therefore, party and institutional papers have a reason to give something back to the readers and the people. Satisfying readers and the people is a responsibility of journalists working at this kind of paper; otherwise we are just holding down a job without doing a lick of work.

After Zhao Yong took control of the paper, he should have sought to thoroughly understand and continue the principles and leadership styles of past Secretariats. Instead, in his first speech before a meeting of section editors and higher officials, he took out the 1951 document that created this newspaper, and told us experienced journalists that the China Youth Daily was a paper that belonged to the Party and the Youth League, harshly declaring that those who did not like it could leave. Let me immediately refute this ... never before had a secretary come to the paper and used this threatening tone of voice, or uttered such an absurdity!

Was the China Youth Daily not a party paper and an institutional paper before Li Erliang became editor-in-chief? To deny this is to deny the correct leadership of the paper under all Secretariats before Zhou Qiang and Zhao Yong. It is to deny the accomplishments of past publishers and editors-in-chief that garnered the respect of their journalistic colleagues. It is to deny the traditions of the China Youth Daily as a party paper and an institutional paper. Most of all, it denies the traditions established and protected through the extraordinary efforts of several generations of China Youth Daily journalists.

Does Zhao Yong really believe that so many editors-in-chief and section heads don't have even this common sense? That they fail to understand these professional rules? That they lack this professional self-awareness? Of course not!

To sum up, in complete contrast to past Secretariats, he believes that the China Youth Daily is not the party and institutional paper that he desires. His ideal institutional paper is like the relationship between father and son. When the father cries out, the son should tremble. When the father says go north, the son dares not to go south. Why can't this paper be run according to his personal will? Now and then it even makes the colleagues in his official circles unhappy, threatening his own chances of promotion.

The harsh reality is, the China Youth Daily is already facing dire problems of survival and development. Circulation falls yearly, advertising revenue is nothing to speak of, and last year the paper took serious losses. At the same time, a set of city papers haw begun to emerge in the realm of mainstream papers, naturally taking responsibility for what mainstream papers usually report. Their news and editorials improve daily. In management, they have hundreds of millions in advertising revenue ... China's traditional mainstream papers are facing an unprecedented decline in influence and sales. This is the choice of the readers and the market. As to how to meet this fierce competition, to retrieve traditional party and institutional papers from decline, there is no choice but to win the people's confidence. Just as Marx wrote about "people's news" -- "It lives among the people, earnestly sharing their trials and tribulations, their weal and woe, their love and hate. It takes its hope and its misery from what it hears in daily life, and reports it publicly." Marx emphasized: "Publications rely upon the trust of the people to survive. Without this condition, a publication will completely lack spirit."

But has Zhao Yong "led" his official newspaper as the secretary of the Youth League Central? Many times he has ordered the cancellation of Youth Topics and Freezing Point. He couldn't do it at once, but he did cut out half the section. He demanded to cancel the most read scholars' columns. He even weakened the influence of these two brand-name sections. He clearly knows from the reader sureys that these two sections are historically the most read and widely enjoyed sections in the paper. (Every month exceeding 70 percent, and frequently over 80 percent; Freezing Point even reached 92 percent.) They are also the two most highly regarded brands in the journalistic world. Freezing Point was not only named by the Central Propaganda Department as a "Famous Section of Important Central Media" and by the National Journalists Association as a "Famous Section of Chinese Journalism" (the National Journalists Association surveyed readers in seven provinces and cities and found that Freezing Point received the most votes of any newspaper in China). Even in a survey of county and local Youth League secretaries, Freezing Point and Youth Topics were ranked first and second. You yourself even said to me: "You think I don't know what the readers like? My wife wants me to bring home the Wednesday paper every week to read Freezing Point!" Did you ever tell this to Zhao Yong?

Why is receiving the approval of the grand readership inconsistent with the principles and orientation of a party paper? Is this the Marxist theory of news? Is this a news and propaganda regulation from the Party? Does this tally with the governance ideas of the new Party Central with comrade Hu Jintao as its General Secretary?

Without doubt, the new rules that finally appeared reveal the true standards of you and the Youth League Secretariat for a party paper -- watch and see if a minority of officials leading higher organs are satisfied. If they offer praise then give rewards. If we are not careful and disturb their nerves or interests, bringing criticism, then punish until they lose their confidence. Let's see if you dare to do that again! Undoubtedly, this is a complete denial of the principles and standards of evaluation of all previous Youth League Central Secretariats.

Regarding the management and orientation of party papers, you also have your own understanding. Not long ago you returned from taking part in a "public opinion war" class. At the office meeting you discussed how you had a "profound realization." What was the realization? You said that you realized that "propaganda" can come from "needs." At the meeting, you singled out a reporter who wrote on Ren Changxia to point out that everyone knows that Ren's relations with her husband are strained, but when writing about a model you should write that they are good. This is a need. You also gave the example of Kong Fansen, saying that you knew him well. Event he was an excellent person, he had some shortcomings, "He is also flesh and blood, with abundant feelings, but we still publicize him, and we cannot write about this side of him. We can't write about his shortcomings, but rather what is good..." You laughed, and the audienced laughed too. It seemed they understood what "abundant feelings" was implying. As for "public opinion," you "realized" that you can do what you want. You can make rumors and fallacies. You said, "Didn't the United States do it to attack Iraq?"

Put aside the question of what the United States and the US media did. Even if it's true, that is not the model that we follow. Generating fallacies and fabricating reality according to "need" have both been abandoned by the Chinese media, and are vigilantly guarded against, at the repeated of the Central Propaganda Department. You came from the People's Daily. Have our colleagues at the People's Daily never painfully reflected on the terrible disaster visited upon the nation and the people by "propaganda" during the Great Leap Forward, the Anti-Rightist Movement, and the Cultural Revolution? Are these not activities that should be completely and forever banned from party papers, including this one? Didn't you notice that when you were discussing your "profound realization" that people at the meeting reacted with sarcasm?

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