China Media

Zhang versus Zhang: An Online Debate over the Value of Studying Journalism in China

Is pursuing a degree in journalism worth it in China? Educational adviser Zhang Xuefeng says no, while professor Zhang Xiaoqiang says yes. Their online debate has captivated millions of people.

Published

2 years ago

July 2, 2023

Zilan Qian

Chinese educational internet influencer Zhang Xuefeng (张雪峰) recently sparked a trending discussion by strongly discouraging Chinese youth from pursuing a degree in journalism. While scholars and state media emphasize the merits of studying journalism, a significant number of netizens question its benefits, labeling it as impractical, uneducational, and restrictive.

With the announcement of the 2023 Chinese National College Entrance Examination (Gaokao) scores this week, the process of selecting university preferences has become the focal point for more than 12.9 million families in China.

Zhang Xuefeng (张雪峰), an internet celebrity widely recognized as the “famous teacher for postgraduate entrance exams,” has found himself at the center of an online controversy for advising students against applying for journalism programs.

According to a report by Lianhe Zaobao (联合早报), the incident originated from a livestreamed phone conversation between Zhang Xuefeng and a parent of a student, who was seeking advice.

Upon learning that a science student from Xinjiang had estimated a score of 590 – surpassing the cutoff for admission to first-tier universities, – while expressing an interest in applying for the journalism program at Sichuan University, Zhang Xuefeng reacted with some extreme emotions and remarks.

He advised against pursuing journalism, stating, “Don’t apply for journalism! Any other major you choose blindly would be better than journalism.” He even went as far as saying that if he were the parent, he would “definitely knock the child unconscious if they insisted on studying journalism” (“这孩子非要报新闻学，我一定会把他打晕”).

A screenshot of Zhang Xuefeng’s live stream phone call session in which he dissuaded the student from selecting Journalism. The line reads: “Just don’t select Journalism, ok?”

After a video of their livestreamed conversation was shared by Yan Tu Education, Zhang Xuefeng’s educational company, on their official Douyin account, Zhang’s provocative remarks gained attention from various parties, including journalism scholars and Chinese (state) media outlets.

The ‘Zhang vs Zhang’ online debate started in mid-June when Professor Dr. Zhang Xiaoqiang (张小强) from Chongqing University’s School of Journalism criticized Zhang Xuefeng’s comments, describing them as “harmful and misleading to the public” (“害人不浅，误导公众”).

According to media outlet The Paper, Dr. Zhang argues that the field of journalism is applicable to many different domains, and parents can trust the journalism departments in prominent Chinese universities and colleges.

He believes that the negative perception of the journalism profession stems from the narrow belief that it only leads to careers in traditional media. However, Dr. Zhang asserts that graduates from journalism departments go on to work in various fields.

He suggested that journalism graduates are often recruited for communication roles, and that they can find employment at government organizations, state-owned enterprises, new media companies, or even gaming start-ups. He also cautioned against being deceived by individuals like Zhang Xuefeng, whom he referred to as a mere “internet celebrity.”

Three Reasons Not To Pursue Journalism Major in China

While there are authoritative voices defending journalism education, there is still substantial support for Zhang Xuefeng’s perspective on discouraging journalism as a career choice.

This support mainly stems from three primary reasons: the perceived impracticality of the profession, doubts about the substantive nature and effectiveness of journalism education, and concerns about the limited freedom and liberal values within the field.

1. Not Practical (“无用”)

Firstly, a journalism degree has been deemed as “impractical” as it cannot guarantee good employment prospects.

Zhang Xuefeng dissuades students from pursuing journalism because, according to him, choosing this major would make it hard to secure a livelihood. For families with limited resources, it is important to choose a field of study that is practical and will enable young people to support themselves (“吃上饭”).

He also emphasizes the need to consider real-life circumstances rather than blindly following prescribed norms. Zhang said, “I am not targeting anyone or any specific profession. I am only providing suggestions based on employment situations. If your child cannot find a job, the responsibility lies not with the teachers but with you as parents!”

However, individuals like Dr. Zhang Xiaoqiang strongly oppose such practicalism. On June 17th, during an interview with Fengmian News (封面新闻), Professor Zhang Xiaoqiang stated that the primary consideration for choosing a major should be the student’s interest instead of employability.

Similarly, China Education Daily (中国教育报) published an article titled “Beware of the Misleading Influence of Internet Celebrity Remarks on College Major Selection” (“警惕网红言论误导志愿填报”), condemning Zhang Xuefeng’s statement for being overly arbitrary and shortsighted. The article emphasizes that personal interests and aspirations are also crucial in major selection and encourages young people to dream big and explore uncertainties.

However, many netizens support Zhang’s pragmatic approach and criticize scholars and state media for being overly idealistic and lacking understanding of the difficulties faced by ordinary people, and especially the younger generations, in China today.

The phrase “Why not eat meat?” (“何不食肉糜,” referring to those in positions of power and influence often failing to understand the hardships of common people) has become widely used in this discussion to highlight the discrepancy between scholars and authoritative voices who advocate for choosing majors based on interests and the economic constraints faced by many families.

“The lower the socioeconomic status of the family, the higher the cost of making mistakes in choosing a major, and therefore students should be more cautious in their decision-making,” commented one netizen, contradicting the argument that young people should pursue their passions without considering practicality.

2. Non-Educational (“无学”)

Studying journalism in universities has also faced criticism for being seen as “non-educational” due to the belief that a journalism degree is unnecessary to become a journalist and lacks a substantial theoretical foundation.

The non-profit organization ‘Narada Insights’ (@南都观察) posted an opinion piece by Liu Yuanju (刘远举), a research fellow at the Shanghai Institute of Finance and Law, on their Weibo account. In the piece, Liu highlights the failure of journalism education to provide in-depth content. Writing skills in journalism can be acquired by competent high school graduates, and the ability to gather and evaluate information is a fundamental skill that extends beyond the journalism field, primarily developed through life and work experiences. Therefore, Liu argues, it becomes challenging for students to acquire specific journalism-related skills and knowledge in universities.

Furthermore, Liu points out that journalism is often perceived to have a relatively low entry barrier, as many successful media professionals do not hold journalism degrees at all. On the other hand, knowledge in areas such as science, technology, economics, finance, or law can be advantageous for journalism work. In practice, media organizations often prefer candidates with these kind of educational backgrounds, as they are the ones with specialized expertise in specific industries.

3. Lack of Freedom (“无自由”)

One third complain and common perception of journalism departments is that they primarily teach students how to align with the state’s agenda, which has led to accusations of Chinese journalism being severely restrictive.

Author Liu Shen Leilei (六神磊磊), a former journalist of Politics and Law at the Chongqing Branch of Xinhua News Agency, shared his thoughts on this topic on Weibo. According to Liu, journalism departments lack substantial theories and instead instruct students to be obedient and comply with authorities.

One journalism graduate agreed with Liu’s post, suggesting that they were being compelled to say what the state wants: “I graduated in journalism, and I have a deep aversion to the field. We not only lack the freedom to speak the truth but are also deprived of the freedom to remain silent.”

Even if students possess enough passion to overcome the ‘impractical’ and ‘uneducational’ aspects of journalism education in Chinese universities, they may be disillusioned when they find that the practice of “journalism” in China does not align with their expectations and ideals.

In response to Liu Shen Leilei’s post, another commenter emphasized the profound challenge of reporting the truth in today’s context and asserted that “journalism has died (新闻已死).” This statement reflects the perception that authentic and truthful reporting has become virtually non-existent. Instead, media outlets are believed to employ various tactics to attract attention and disseminate state propaganda. On social media, there is a frequent suggestion to “rename journalism departments as propaganda departments” to reflect this perceived reality.

An End to the Debate?

As the Zhang versus Zhang discussion on pursuing a degree in Journalism continued, Dr. Zhang Xiaoqiang recently took to his social media to express his desire to end the debate, acknowledging the overwhelming criticisms from netizens (#张小强称给自己和张雪峰争论画上句号#, #张小强说和张雪峰争论结束#).

“I still firmly believe that journalism and communication are good majors with promising prospects,” he wrote. “However, media professionals and educators need to foster a positive public opinion and social environment for their own development. We must first prove ourselves.”

Meanwhile, on Chinese social media, various hashtags have emerged in light of this discussion. One of them is “Who Do You Support in the Zhang Xuefeng Journalism Studies Debate?” (#张雪峰新闻学之争你支持谁#), which has reached over 130 million views on Weibo by now.

There even is a possibility to vote on whose side you are.

With more than 42,000 votes, it is clear who the majority of netizens agree with most: 39,000 voters agreed with Zhang Xuefeng that studying journalism is not a favorable option for Chinese young people today.

“They’re starting rumors, smooth things over, and oppose the people,” another person criticizes the state of journalism.

While the debate between Zhang Xuefeng and Professor Zhang Xiaoqiang may have temporarily subsided, the ongoing discourse surrounding the significance of journalism in China is bound to continue.

By Zilan Qian

Follow @whatsonweibo

Get the story behind the hashtag. Subscribe to What’s on Weibo here to receive our newsletter and get access to our latest articles:

Part of featured image via Xigua Shipin.

Spotted a mistake or want to add something? Please let us know in comments below or email us. First-time commenters, please be patient – we will have to manually approve your comment before it appears.

Up Next

Weibo Watch: Different Realities

Don't Miss

When White People Discovered China’s ‘White People Food’ Trend

Zilan Qian

Zilan Qian is a China-born undergraduate student at Barnard College majoring in Anthropology. She is interested in exploring different cultural phenomena, loves people-watching, and likes loitering in supermarkets and museums.

Click to comment

China Media

12-Year-Old Girl from Shandong Gets Infected with HPV: Viral Case Exposes Failures in Protecting Minors

A doctor in Tai’an faced resistance when she tried to report a 12-year-old girl’s HPV case. She then turned to social media instead.

Published

4 weeks ago

December 18, 2024

Manya Koetse

A 12-year-old girl from Shandong was diagnosed with HPV at a local hospital. When a doctor attempted to report the case, she faced resistance. Weibo users are now criticizing how the incident was handled.

Over the past week, there has been significant uproar on Chinese social media regarding how authorities, official channels, and state media in China have handled cases of sexual abuse and rape involving female victims and male perpetrators, often portraying the perpetrators in a way that appears to diminish their culpability.

One earlier case, which we covered here, involved a mentally ill female MA graduate from Shanxi who had been missing for over 13 years. She was eventually found living in the home of a man who had been sexually exploiting her, resulting in at least two children. The initial police report described the situation as the woman being “taken in” or “sheltered” by the man, a phrasing that outraged many netizens for seemingly portraying the man as benevolent, despite his actions potentially constituting rape.

Adding to the outrage, it was later revealed that local authorities and villagers had been aware of the situation for years but failed to intervene or help the woman escape her circumstances.

Currently, another case trending online involves a 12-year-old girl from Tai’an, Shandong, who was admitted to the hospital in Xintai on December 12 after testing positive for HPV.

HPV stands for Human Papillomavirus, a common sexually transmitted infection that can infect both men and women. Over 80% of women experience HPV infection at least once in their lifetime. While most HPV infections clear naturally within two years, some high-risk HPV types can cause serious illness including cancer.

“How can you be sure she was sexually assaulted?”

The 12-year-old girl in question had initially sought treatment for pelvic inflammatory disease, but upon review, her doctor discovered that she had been previously treated for vaginitis six months earlier. During further discussions with the girl, the doctor learned she had been sexually active with a boy five years her senior and was no longer attending school.

Given that the age of consent in China is 14 years old, the doctor sought to report the case to authorities. However, this effort was reportedly met with resistance from the hospital’s medical department, where she was allegedly questioned: “How can you be sure she was sexually assaulted?”

When attempts to escalate the case to the women’s federation and health commission went unanswered, the doctor turned to a blogger she knew (@反射弧超长星人影九) for help in raising awareness.

The blogger shared the story on Weibo but failed to receive a response through private messages from the Tai’an Police. They then contacted a police-affiliated Weibo channel they were familiar with, which eventually succeeded in alerting the Shandong police, prompting the formation of an investigation team.

As a result, on December 16, the 17-year-old boy was arrested and is now facing legal criminal measures.

According to Morning News (@新闻晨报), the boy in question is the 17-year-old Li (李某某), who had been in contact with the girl through the internet since May of 2024 after which they reportedly “developed a romantic relationship” and had “sexual relations.”

Meanwhile, fearing for her job, the doctor reportedly convinced the blogger to delete or privatize the posts. The blogger was also contacted by the hospital, which had somehow obtained the blogger’s phone number, asking for the post to be taken down. Despite this, the case had already gone viral.

The blogger, meanwhile, expressed frustration after the case gained widespread media traction, accusing others of sharing it simply to generate traffic. They argued that once the police had intervened, their goal had been achieved.

But the case goes beyond this specific story alone, and sparked broader criticisms on Chinese social media. Netizens have pointed out systemic failures that did not protect the girl, including the child’s parents, her school, and the hospital’s medical department, all of whom appeared to have ignored or silenced the issue. As WeChat blogging account Xinwenge wrote: “They all tacitly colluded.”

Xinwenge also referenced another case from 2020 involving a minor in Dongguang, Liaoning, who was raped and subsequently underwent an abortion. After the girl’s mother reported the incident to the police, the procuratorate discovered that a hospital outpatient department had performed the abortion but failed to report it as required by law. The procuratorate notified the health bureau, which fined the hospital 20,000 yuan ($2745) and revoked the department’s license.

Didn’t the hospital in Tai’an also violate mandatory reporting requirements? Additionally, why did the school allow a 12-year-old girl to drop out of the compulsory education programme?

“This is not a “boyfriend” or a “romantic relationship.””

The media reporting surrounding this case also triggered anger, as it failed to accurately phrase the incident as involving a raped minor, instead describing it as a girl having ‘sexual relations’ with a much older ‘boyfriend.’

Under Chinese law, engaging in sexual activity with someone under 14, regardless of their perceived willingness, is considered statutory rape. A 12-year-old is legally unable to give consent to sexual activity.

“The [Weibo] hashtag should not be “12-Year-Old Infected with HPV, 17-Year-Old Boyfriend Arrested” (#12岁女孩感染HPV其17岁男友被抓#); it should instead be “17-Year-Old Boy Sexually Assaulted 12-Year-Old, Causing Her to Become Infected” (#17岁男孩性侵12岁女孩致其感染#).”

Another blogger wrote: “First, we had the MA graduate from Shanxi who was forced into marriage and having kids, and it was called “being sheltered.” Now, we have a little girl from Shandong being raped and contracting HPV, and it was called “having a boyfriend.” A twelve-year-old is just a child, a sixth-grader in elementary school, who had been sexually active for over six months. This is not a “boyfriend” or a “romantic relationship.” The proper way to say it is that a 17-year-old male lured and raped a 12-year-old girl, infecting her with HPV.”

By now, the case has garnered widespread attention. The hashtag “12-Year-Old Infected with HPV, 17-Year-Old Boyfriend Arrested” (#12岁女孩感染HPV其17岁男友被抓#) has been viewed over 160 million times on Weibo, while the hashtag “Official Notification on 12-Year-Old Infected with HPV” (#官方通报12岁女孩感染hpv#) has received over 90 million clicks.

Besides the outrage over the individuals and institutions that tried to suppress the story, this incident has also sparked a broader discussion about the lack of adequate and timely sexual education for minors in Chinese schools. Liu Wenli (刘文利), an expert in children’s sexual education, argued on Weibo that both parents and schools play critical roles in teaching children about sex, their bodies, personal boundaries, and the risks of engaging with strangers online.

“Protecting children goes beyond shielding them from HPV infection,” Liu writes. “It means safeguarding them from all forms of harm. Sexual education is an essential part of this process, ensuring every child’s healthy and safe development.”

Many netizens discussing this case have expressed hope that the female doctor who brought the issue to light will not face repercussions or lose her job. They have praised her for exposing the incident and pursuing justice for the girl, alongside the efforts of those on Weibo who helped amplify the story.

The blogger who played a key role in exposing the story recently wrote: “I sure hope the authorities will give an award to the female doctor for reported this case in accordance with the law.” For some, the doctor is nothing short of a hero: “This doctor truly is my role model.”

By Manya Koetse, with contributions by Miranda Barnes
(follow on X, LinkedIn, or Instagram)

Follow What’s on Weibo on

China Media

Hu Xijin’s Comeback to Weibo

After 90 days of silence, Hu Xijin is back on Weibo—but not everyone’s thrilled.

Published

2 months ago

November 7, 2024

Manya Koetse

A SHORTER VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE WAS PART OF THE MOST RECENT WEIBO WATCH NEWSLETTER.

For nearly 100 days, since July 27, the well-known social and political commentator Hu Xijin (胡锡进) remained silent on Chinese social media. This was highly unusual for the columnist and former Global Times editor-in-chief, who typically posts multiple Weibo updates daily, along with regular updates on his X account and video commentaries. His Weibo account boasts over 24.8 million followers.

Various foreign media outlets speculated that his silence might be related to comments he previously made about the Third Plenum and Chinese economics, especially regarding China’s shift to treating public and private enterprises equally. But without any official statement, Chinese netizens were left to speculate about his whereabouts.

Most assumed he had, in some way, taken a “wrong” stance in his commentary on the economy and stock market, or perhaps on politically sensitive topics like the Suzhou stabbing of a Japanese student, which might have led to his being sidelined for a while. He certainly wouldn’t be the first prominent influencer or celebrity to disappear from social media and public view—when Alibaba’s Jack Ma seemed to have fallen out of favor with authorities, he went missing, sparking public concern.

After 90 days of absence, the most-searched phrases on Weibo tied to Hu Xijin’s name included:

胡锡进解封 “Hu Xijin ban lifted”
胡锡进微博解禁 “Hu Xijin’s Weibo account unblocked”
胡锡进禁言 “Hu Xijin silenced”
胡锡进跳楼 “Hu Xijin jumped off a building”

On October 31, Hu suddenly reappeared on Weibo with a post praising the newly opened Chaobai River Bridge, which connects Beijing to Dachang in Hebei—where Hu owns a home—significantly reducing travel time and making the more affordable Dachang area attractive to people from Beijing. The post received over 9,000 comments and 25,000 likes, with many welcoming back the old journalist. “You’re back!” and “Old Hu, I didn’t see you on Weibo for so long. Although I regularly curse your posts, I missed you,” were among the replies.

When Hu wrote about Trump’s win, the top comment read: “Old Trump is back, just like you!”

Not everyone, however, is thrilled to see Hu’s return. Blogger Bad Potato (@一个坏土豆) criticized Hu, claiming that with his frequent posts and shifting views, he likes to jump on trends and gauge public opinion—but is actually not very skilled at it, allegedly contributing to a toxic online environment.

Other bloggers have also taken issue with Hu’s tendency to contradict himself or backtrack on stances he takes in his posts.

Some have noted that while Hu has returned, his posts seem to lack “soul.” For instance, his recent two posts about Trump’s win were just one sentence each. Perhaps, now that his return is fresh, Hu is carefully treading the line on what to comment on—or not.

Nevertheless, a post he made on November 3rd sparked plenty of discussion. In it, Hu addressed the story of math ‘genius’ Jiang Ping (姜萍), the 17-year-old vocational school student who made it to the top 12 of the Alibaba Global Mathematics Competition earlier this year. As covered in our recent newsletter, the final results revealed that both Jiang and her teacher were disqualified for violating rules about collaborating with others.

In his post, Hu criticized the “Jiang Ping fever” (姜萍热) that had flooded social media following her initial qualification, as well as Jiang’s teacher Wang Runqiu (王润秋), who allegedly misled the underage Jiang into breaking the rules.

The post was somewhat controversial because Hu himself had previously stated that those who doubted Jiang’s sudden rise as a math talent and presumed her guilty of cheating were coming from a place of “darkness.” That post, from June 23 of this year, has since been deleted.

Despite the criticism, some appreciate Hu’s consistency in being inconsistent: “Hu Xijin remains the same Hu Xijin, always shifting with the tide.”

Hu has not directly addressed his absence from Weibo. Instead, he shared a photo of himself from 1978, when he joined the military. In that post, he reflected on his journey of growth, learning, and commitment to the country. Judging by his renewed frequency of posting, it seems he’s also recommitted to Weibo.