The 20th Third Plenary Session of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is scheduled to be held next month. Recently, a high-ranking official from the CCP’s propaganda department published an article in the party’s media, suggesting that articles written for party newspapers should be done in a “memorial style,” sparking discussions about loyalty and flattery. However, the article was later deleted. Experts believe that the practice of writing articles in a “memorial style” for journalists is a reflection of the media ecosystem under an authoritarian regime. The deletion of the article is seen as the authorities’ attempt to prevent any backlash that could tarnish their image.
On June 25, the CCP’s official media People’s Daily published an article by Zheng Shaozhong, the head of the Jiangxi branch of the People’s Daily, discussing the “threefold realm of writing CCP newspaper news,” with the headline “Writing as a memorial, as a thesis, and as a love letter.”
Zheng Shaozhong quoted Xi Jinping’s call for the People’s Daily to play the role of the CCP’s mouthpiece. The article emphasized that as journalists for the People’s Daily, the key focus should be on how to internalize the spirit of the General Secretary’s important speeches into the robust function of writing news for the party newspaper.
According to Zheng Shaozhong, as journalists for party newspapers, they should write news as if it were a memorial, a thesis, or a love letter, embodying the principles of the party’s nature. He claimed that writing as a memorial means to always bear in mind the principles of the party.
The term “memorial” refers to the ancient Chinese officials’ memorials to the emperor.
Lai Rongwei, the Executive Director of the Taiwan Inspiration Association (TIA), expressed to Epoch Times on June 27 that the current situation in China is where the media is subservient to the party. Media practitioners in China are not allowed to independently criticize or expose facts; they must tell the so-called “Chinese story” and follow the central theme set by the CCP. Lai mentioned that everyone must please their bosses while writing, as the final draft will be inspected by the top boss.
Chen Shimin, Associate Professor of the Department of Political Science at National Taiwan University, stated to Epoch Times that the media ecosystem in authoritarian states requires the idolization and deification of leaders. He noted that those familiar with the political system of the CCP would not be surprised by such circumstances.
The discussion by Zheng Shaozhong about writing in a memorial style on social platform X triggered numerous debates:
– “Chinese government documents have long been in the format of new eight-legged essays.”
– “It’s almost like calling someone ‘Your Majesty.’ In the past, even during the advice of the Guoan Hui by Yuan Shikai, it was no different. 1.4 billion people put down their armor, and not a single one is a man.”
– “With a name like ‘Shaozhong,’ he should be taken out and chopped. How could you not think of ‘Quanzhong’ and only wish to be ‘Shaozhong’? What else could this be if not a spy?”
Some netizens compared Zheng Shaozhong to Li Hongzhong, the Secretary of the Tianjin Municipal Party Committee, suggesting that both are going to great lengths to show loyalty. Li Hongzhong once mentioned, “Loyalty does not equate to absolute disloyalty,” and later was promoted to a member of the Politburo.
Surprisingly, upon checking the web, it was found that the original article by People’s Daily had been deleted. However, relevant screenshots of the article were still circulating on the internet.
Why was the article deleted? According to commentary from Radio France Internationale, could it be that what Zheng Shaozhong said did not resonate genuinely with the CCP leadership? Or perhaps, it was deemed that Zheng Shaozhong did not yet have the qualifications to be a minister? By comparing oneself to a subject, could it be a display of arrogance?
Lai Rongwei mentioned that regardless of Zheng Shaozhong’s motives for publishing the article, it was certainly unfavorable towards Xi Jinping and the image of the CCP, hence it would swiftly be cast aside.
“If allowed to persist, it would blatantly reveal that the media is truly just a tool of the CCP. While the CCP keeps talking about being ‘for the people,’ isn’t it all just empty words? Wouldn’t that be a clear and ironic contrast? Therefore, it has to be erased.”
Chen Shimin indicated that the reason for the deletion of the article was simply because the general public treated it as a joke, as they dare to be angry but not to speak out. The CCP itself must have realized that such an article would leave a negative impression and rather harm them, hence the prompt removal.
In the backdrop of the ongoing economic decline, with the CCP issuing warnings to the party, government, and military, continually cautioning against crossing the line. Recently, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the CCP has been interpreting the amended “Disciplinary Regulations of the Party” known as the “disciplinary rules,” repeatedly warning party members not to speak out of turn or touch the “red lines.”
Lai Rongwei remarked that every time there is a major political gathering in the CCP, similar gag orders are imposed to prevent any disrespectful voices against the party leadership, creating an atmosphere of repression that can spark speculations about intensified power struggles within the CCP.