苏联报刊实行公开性,扩大总编辑权限以后,一些中央一级的报刊,由于得到党政领导机关的支持,其发言(尤其是批评性发言)往往阻力小,收效大。而在地方的一些报刊编辑部,却出现了相反的情形:总编辑权限扩大以后,在有关报刊批评问题上,编辑部和党委之间产生了尖锐的矛盾和冲突。前不久在乌克兰共和国中央委员会关于报刊改革问题会议上的一场辩论,就说明了这一点。现将与会双方(各级党委代表和编辑部代表)的争论焦点概述如下: 编辑部方面:有关党委应当及时回答报纸批评。遗憾的是,这方面做得很不够。党委方面:许多编辑部只是频频向党的委员会发出提醒,要求回答,这公正吗?要知道,除了党委之外,还有各级苏维埃组织、工会组织以及经济和文化部门,如果报纸批评涉及的是有关这些组织和部门的问题,难道不应当要求它们也承担责任吗? After the publication of the Soviet press openness and the expansion of the editor-in-chief, some of the central-level newspapers and periodicals, with the support of the party and government leading organs, often have their speech (especially the critical ones) of small resistance and great success. However, some newspapers and periodicals editorial departments in local places appeared the opposite situation: after the editorial authority was expanded, there were sharp contradictions and conflicts between editorial departments and party committees on the issue of press criticism. This was illustrated not long ago by a debate at the Central Committee of the Republic of Ukraine on press conference reform. The focus of the controversy between the two parties (representatives of party committees and editorial departments at all levels) is as follows: Editorial department: The relevant party committees should promptly reply to the newspaper’s criticism. Unfortunately, this is not enough. As for the party committee: Many editorial departments just frequently give reminders to the party committees and ask for answers. Is this fair? You know, in addition to the party committees, there are all levels of Soviet organizations, trade union organizations, and economic and cultural departments involved in criticizing the newspapers Are there any questions about these organizations and departments, should they not be required to assume responsibility?