Abstract The article reprinted below, entitled "Lu i pei-k'ao" [Noted for the Record] (1), appeared in the Wen-hui pao on June 10. In the past, Shanghai's Wen-hui pao and Peking's Kuang-ming jih-pao [Kuangming Daily] have published great quantities of excellent news reports and articles. The fundamental political orientation of these two papers, however, over a certain period has become the orientation of the bourgeois press. For a period of time, these two papers have taken advantage of both the slogan "Let a hundred schools of thought contend" and the rectification campaign of the Communist Party to publish a great quantity of articles which expressed, but failed to criticize, the bourgeois viewpoint, as well as news reports of an inflammatory nature. This can be verified in the papers themselves. A group of people [on the staff] of these two papers have made a great mistake in their views of the newspaper. They have obscured the differences in fundamental principles between the press in capitalist countries and the press in socialist countries. On this point, some editors and reporters of some other newspapers also have problems. So do some instructors in journalism departments of universities. It is not just Wen-hui pao and Kuang-ming jih-pao that have this problem, only that these two have manifested it most strikingly. Erroneous viewpoints can be rectified through study, examination, 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 already to have been altered somewhat. Non-Party newspapers of course shouldn't be run in precisely the same way as Party newspapers; they should have their own special characteristics. But their basic orientation should be in conformity with other papers. This is because the press in socialist countries [should] reflect a socialist economy, that is, a planned economy based on a system of public ownership, in the way it reports the news. It is quite unlike the press in capitalist countries which, in the way it reports the news, reflects an anarchic economy of contending groups. As long as class differences still 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 matter. Among journalists, there are some Communist Party members and Communist Youth League members who also have the viewpoint of the bourgeois press. They should also examine, study and criticize this erroneous viewpoint. Dogmatic journalistic viewpoints and stereotyped styles of writing 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 also must be developed in the debate. In this way, we will create a two-front struggle against the "Left" and the "Right" on journalistic matters. Having noticed the obvious and harmful tendencies of some Wen-hui pao staff who take the bourgeois standpoint and wage class struggle against the proletariat, Yao Wen-yüan's article simply hints at the bourgeois orientation of Wen-hui pao. 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 Wen-hui pao and Kuang-ming jih-pao for their consideration.