The Bourgeois Orientation of Wenhui bao 1
During a Certain Period
(June 14, 1957)

Source: RMRB (June 14, 1957), 1. Other Chinese Texts: Wansui (n.d. 3), pp.
178–179; URI (1976), pp. 215–216; Mao liang, pp. 311–312 (excerpt); HQ (Aug.
25, 1968), 19 (excerpt). Available English Translations: URI (1976), pp. 219–220;
J. Chen (1970), pp. 55–56.

Although this article was published in RMRB under the byline of “Editorial Department,”
it is widely recognized as Mao’s writing. The URI source cites the Red Guard material
Xinwen zhanbao (Combat Bulletin in Journalism) 6 (June 14, 1967), published by the
Shoudu xinwen pipan lianluozhan (Liaison Station for the Critique of Journalism at the
Capital), as evidence that “this is an editorial department’s article rewritten by Chairman
Mao for Renmin ribao.”

APRIL — JUNE 1957 / 585

The article reprinted below, entitled “Noted for [Future] Reference,”2 appeared
in the Wenhui bao on June 10. For a certain length of time in the past Shanghai’s
Wenhui bao and Beijing’s Guangming ribao3 have published great quantities
of excellent news reports and articles. However, within a short period, the
fundamental political orientation of these two papers has become the orientation of the bourgeois press. During a certain period of time, these two papers
took advantage of the slogan “Let a hundred schools of thought contend”4 and
the rectification campaign of the Communist Party to publish a large amount
of articles that expressed, but failed to criticize, the bourgeois viewpoint, as
well as news reports of an inflammatory nature. These can be verified in the
papers themselves. Some people [on the staff] of these two papers have made
a great mistake in their views of the newspaper. These have obfuscated the
differences in principles between the press in capitalist countries and the press
in socialist countries. On this point, some editors and reporters of some other
newspapers are in the same boat; so are some instructors in the journalism
departments of some universities. It is not just Wenhui bao and Guangming
ribao that have this problem, only that these two have manifested it most
strikingly. Erroneous viewpoints can be rectified through study, [careful] consideration, and criticism, and we are waiting for them [to do this]. Judging from
the situation at these two papers in the last few days, their policy seems to have
already been somewhat altered. Non-Party newspapers, of course, should not
be run in precisely identical ways as Party newspapers; they should have their
own special characteristics.5 But their basic orientation should be in conformity
with other papers. This is because the press in socialist countries is, through the
means of news [reporting], a reflection of the socialist economy, that is, a
planned economy based on a system of public ownership. It is quite unlike the
press in capitalist countries which is, through the means of news [reporting], a
reflection of an anarchistic economy, an economy of competition among
contending groups. As long as class differences exist in the world, the press
will always remain an instrument of class struggle. We hope to develop debate
on this question so that everyone will arrive at a common understanding of the
issue. Among news reporters, there are some Communist Party members and
Communist Youth League members6 who also have the viewpoint of the
bourgeois press. They, too, should consider, study, and criticize this erroneous
viewpoint. Dogmatic viewpoints in journalism and stereotyped styles of writing7 should also be criticized. Things like this are quite troublesome. Party
newspapers, including this paper, have committed errors of this kind. Criticism
of this kind of error must also be developed in the ensuing debate. In this way,
we will have to create a two-front struggle against the “Left” and the “Right”
on journalistic matters. Having noticed the obvious and harmful tendencies of
some people on the [staff of the] Wenhui bao who take the bourgeois standpoint
and wage class struggle against the proletariat, Yao Wenyuan’s8 article simply
points subtly to the bourgeois orientation of Wenhui bao. It is a fine article and
for this reason it is reprinted here. In addition, we are taking this opportunity


to express our views to our fellow [newspaper] workers at Wenhui bao and
Guangming ribao for their consideration.

Notes

1. Wenhui bao was a newspaper based in Shanghai, affiliated with the China
Democratic League (see text Sept. 21, 1949, vol. I, note 1, and text July 1, 1957, note
10). At this time the publisher and editor-in-chief of Wenhui bao was Xu Zhucheng,
who was replaced by Jin Zhonghua in the anti-Rightist campaign later in the year. It
was specially oriented toward the reporting of policies and conditions of primary and
secondary education in China. Mao spoke of the need to criticize the Wenhui bao earlier;
see text April 1957(2), note 38.
2. This refers to the article “Lu yi beikou—du bao ou gan” (Noted for [Future] Reference:
Incidental Thoughts on Reading the Newspapers), written by Yao Wenyuan, which appeared
on the same page as this editorial essay in RMRB (June 14, 1957). This article is also
reproduced in URI (1976), pp. 217–218.
In this article Yao refers to a statement that Mao had made several days earlier in his
speech to the delegates of the Communist Youth League (see text May 25, 1957; Yao’s essay
was dated June 6, 1957). Yao points out that this news item and statement were dealt with
in dramatically different ways by the three newspapers, Renmin ribao (People’s Daily),
Jiefang ribao (Liberation Daily), and Wenhui bao. In particular, he points to the difference
in type size of the headlines in the three papers for this item. Yao argues that although it was
somewhat speculative, the different treatment of the same item in three papers can be
attributed to the different degrees of attention and significance which the three papers
attached to the item, implying that the Wenhui bao, in particular, downplayed the importance
of Mao’s statement because it had become jaded about socialist and Communist slogans.
On this subject, see Wenhui bao’s “self-criticism” essay published on July 4, 1957, after the
criticisms against it had been launched. (See text July 1, 1957, note 2. See also RMSC [1958],
p. 147.)
3. Guangming ribao (Guangming Daily) was founded in 1949 in Beijing as an organ of
the Democratic League (see note 1). In 1952 it was reorganized as a common organ for the
majority of the democratic parties. At the time of this article its publisher was Zhang Bojun
and its editor-in-chief was Chu Anping. It was specifically oriented toward the reporting of
literature, science and technology, and educational policies.
4. See text Autumn 1956, note 1.
5. This is an oblique reference to the RMRB (actually the carrier of the editorial here),
which is a CPC-affiliated paper, and which has also been criticized; see text April 1957(2).
6. See text Feb. 27, 1957, note 74.
7. See text Dec. 27, 1955(2), vol. I, note 106, and text Aug. 24, 1956(1), note 12.
8. Yao Wenyuan (b. 1931), one of the top leaders of the CPC in the early 1970s who
was, after Mao’s death in 1976, labeled one of the “Gang of Four,” and who has been
repudiated and purged from the Party by the post-Mao CPC leadership, was a chief motivator
of the Cultural Revolution Group of the Central Committee of the CPC, onetime chief editor
of GMRB, and leader of the Red Guard factions. He was the person who wrote the article
“On the New Historical Play ‘Hai Rui Dismissed from Office’,” which is generally
considered to be the first salvo that triggered the Cultural Revolution. At the time of his
article for RMRB here, Yao was a correspondent for Wenyi bao and a member of the editorial
board of the magazine Meng ya (Sprouts, see text Nov. 11, 1956, source note). Yao’s literary
criticisms from a radical political standpoint first began to capture national attention when
he participated in the denunciation of Hu Feng in May 1955. For a biographical sketch of
Yao, see URI (1970), II, p. 764; W. Bartke (1981), pp. 589–590; and Zhonggong renming
lu, supp., p. 58.

APRIL – JUNE 1957 / 587