论文部分内容阅读
西安日报两位记者反映报纸在进行一次批评中遇到重重阻力的问题,很有典型性,值得注意。西安日报的这个批评,不论怎样挑剔,都应该承认它的建设性,理应得到被批评者的积极反应,不料得到的却是全盘抵制甚至无理非难,而有关党委领导也不给报纸以应有的支持。当然,如果批评错了,可以进行反批评。但是,问题在于就是按照西安市一轻局所叙述的过程,也和西安日报登载的内容基本相同。既然批评基本属实,为什么还要抵制呢?这是很不正常的,和发扬社会主义民主的要求是不相容的。对待报纸批评有两种截然不同的态度,得到的是两种截然不同的结果。一种是从善如流,把批评看成一面难得的镜子,用来仔细对照,有则改之,无则加勉;对批评中某些失当之处,也认真向报纸指出,帮助改进。这样做,不论对哪一方都不会带来任何损伤,而是受益非浅。另一种是对批评嫉之如仇,不管你有多少道理,一概拒之门外。用来抵制批评的最常见的理由是“工作难做”,最常见的手法是避开问题的实质,抓住一些细枝末节纠缠不休,却从来不想想倒底怎样工作才会好做?社会舆论究竟站在哪边?这样搞的结果,只能是公私两亏,民主受挫。是从善如流好呢,还是嫉善如仇好呢?答案是很明白的。
The two reporters in Xi’an Daily reported that they have encountered many obstacles in conducting a criticism. They are typical and worth noting. The criticism of the Xi’an Daily, no matter how picky, should recognize its constructiveness and deserve the positive response from critics. However, the unexpected response is that it is boycotting or even unreasonable, and the leaders of Party committees do not give the newspapers due due stand by. Of course, if criticism is wrong, anti-criticism can be conducted. However, the problem is that according to a light bureau in Xi’an, the process described in Xi’an Daily News and published the same content. Since criticism is basically true, why should we resist it? This is very unusual and it is incompatible with the requirement of promoting socialist democracy. There are two very different attitudes toward newspaper criticism and two very different results. One kind is from the good, the criticism as a rare mirror, used for careful comparison, there are then changed, without added encouragement; some misconduct in the criticism, but also to the newspaper pointed out that to help improve. In doing so, no harm will come to any one party, but it will benefit greatly. The other one is jealous of criticism, no matter how much truth you have, you are always out of doors. The most common reason to resist criticism is that “work is hard to do.” The most common tactic is to avoid the essence of the problem, seize some inexhaustible entanglements, but never think about what it takes to do well. Where are you standing? The result of such a move can only be a public-private loss and a democratic one. Is it good to be good, or is it a good man? The answer is very clear.