The feedback on the newspapers has been relatively good. The newspapers have made progress—both news reporting and commentary have improved—but we must not be complacent.

News reporting has become more lively recently.

The approach of having everyone write commentaries, with each section taking responsibility for its own, is a good method. The editor-in-chief is the commander and must organize everyone to write; relying on just a few people won’t work.

As for organizational forms, we need to study whether this kind of production relations hinders the development of productive forces.

Different departments and sections can engage in competition.

When writing commentaries, one must integrate the situation and the political climate. Shifts must be made quickly.

Writing should not be rigid; imagery should be diversified.

Political commentary should be like political commentary, but that does not exclude lyrical expression.

People in the newspaper office should frequently go down to the grassroots, breathe fresh air, and maintain good relations with provincial Party committees.

Those who go down should both work and serve as journalists. They should not stay in Beijing for long periods but should be more mobile and frequently travel outside.

The *People’s Daily* is a department of the Central Committee, just like the Central Organization Department and the Central Propaganda Department, and should learn from the localities. A very important task of the newspaper is to reprint new material from local newspapers, treating this as a political task. In this way, it encourages local newspapers and makes it necessary for them to read the *People’s Daily*.

Ideological commentaries can be pursued.

The issue of being both red and expert remains a major question, but it must be discussed in connection with the current situation.

Headlines must attract people to read—this is very important.

A special column on eliminating the four pests should also be launched.

× × ×

We must examine the situation regarding the propaganda against rash advance after June 1956. Review the commentaries and news reports from that period.

The editorial of June 20 contained a principled error. It talked about opposing both conservatism and impatience. At that time, the anti-rightist campaign had been underway for less than half a year, yet this editorial assumed that the campaign had already achieved great success—an overestimation that was incorrect. It cannot be said that the editorial contained no Marxism at all, but after the "however," it was anti-Marxist. The editorial’s formulation was similar to Wei Zhongxian’s method. In the Donglin Party, there were both gentlemen and petty men, just as in the court there were both petty men and gentlemen. But his real meaning was to say that the Donglin faction consisted of petty men. The editorial quoted my words by truncating them, citing only the two sentences opposing "leftism" while omitting the full passage—this is wrong. It was like Qin Qiong selling his horse, cutting off the head and tail and keeping only the middle section. The method was one-sided. The editorial first discussed how the minority behaved, then how the majority behaved, appearing to oppose both sides in form, but in reality, it opposed "leftism" and "rash advance."

It criticized the double-wheel double-share plow as a case of "rash advance," claiming it could not be used in the south and was no good. In fact, it was used and worked very well. This should be reversed. Its reputation should be restored.

On the issue of "breaking with convention," the editorial said it was "inappropriately breaking with convention"—this statement is incorrect. Revolution means breaking with convention. As a matter of policy, we cannot speak of "opposing rash advance"; we can only speak of "adjustment." When opposed as a tendency, it negates the principle of achieving more, faster, better, and more economically.

The editorial claimed that rash advance emerged especially after the Central Committee put forward the principles of "more, faster, better, and more economically" and the "Forty Articles." This formulation is one-sided, implying that the shortcomings originated from the Central Committee.

Have you opposed rightism? This kind of formulation appears dialectical in form but in reality vulgarizes dialectics. Opposing "leftism" and rightism simultaneously is a posture of excessive caution and balance.

The principle of "more, faster, better, and more economically" is itself comprehensive and an integral whole. It cannot be said that one part is appropriate while another is not.

Based on experience, shortcomings in work are normal, not abnormal. Revolution requires leaps. Individual shortcomings are unavoidable. We must distinguish whether they represent nine fingers or just one finger. A slight left or right deviation in work is a normal phenomenon. The key lies in the policy and methods. From now on, do not mention "opposing rash advance"—absolutely do not mention it.