When a commentary is not a commentary

Does the Chinese press provide space for commentary? This question seems, needless to say, rather superfluous, for one will not fail to find a huge page of "reviews" or "opinions" in most of the Chinese dailies. A stringent test, however, reveals that the standards of these pages fall far short of acceptable benchmarks to qualify them as "commentary".

Many an article in the "commentary" sections can hardly be regarded as such, for it is no more than just a letter from the reader. Put differently, the so-called commentaries are nothing but the complaints and grouses of readers, pretty similar to what one gets to hear in kopitiam talk. Their views are repetitive and often miss the point. This is well below the criteria for a serious commentary.

To create a system of commentary monitoring, the Chinese press should put in place a set of strict criteria and basic benchmarks, so that all opinion pieces to be published will not fail to address the crux of the issues tackled. Real commentary must not simply be a piece to express one's complaints and grouses, but also be able to provide the reader with new knowledge, insights and perspectives.

This is not to belittle the importance of the daily complaints and grouses. What the Chinese press should have done is to help the reader differentiate between "commentary" and "letters to the editor". Because "commentary" and "letters" are often confused and lumped together, there is no improvement in knowledge to speak of, let alone an accumulation of new perspectives.