中國特有的「輿論監督」修辭與「傳媒作為第四權」的說法，外貌神似，遠多過相通之處。不過，由於過去20年來，它儼然已經成為官方所提倡的概念之一，是以在中國共產黨堅持傳媒是黨喉舌的背景下，許多論者無分左右，紛紛起而闡述及推動輿論監督的論述及實踐，試圖為新聞改革尋求新的動力，藉以拓寬傳媒的言論空間。本文指出，輿論監督是黨政行政權力的延伸，一方面起自現實壓力，但也來自於黨政中央的主觀作為，因此在2004年有黨內監督條例將輿論監督列為十種反腐敗與監督的機制之一。再者，作者表明，西方傳媒的新聞產製知識對於中國輿論監督的討論，並非完全沒有參考餘地。本文因此分別從「黨與行政、立法與司法」等面向，逐次考察、介紹與評估中國的輿論監督之發展，並儘量同時以源生自 不同社會背景的相關論述與知識，與中國的論述及實際作為，有所對話。我們無法得知的是，究竟輿論監督在中國是否只進不退，或是進進退退，或甚至出現倒退。無法得知的部分原因，還不是靜態視之，則來自於中國幅員廣闊，各色人等的認知與利益瓜葛，其資訊不完整的範圍，可能大些。更重要的是，動態觀照，則有利與不利於輿論監督的事例及力量，同時並存。

As one of China’s peculiar discourses, “supervision by the press” is not the same as the “fourth estate” concept that the Western liberals position the media. To broaden areas where media could have more critical coverage, progressives in China, both the liberal and the left, have however made constant efforts, calling and endorsing “the supervision of the press”rhetoric and policy that the Chinese Communist Party seems to have been emphasizing during the past twenty years. This research note examines what is meant and achieved by “supervision by the press”, and reflects upon whether the Party, the executive, the legislative and the judiciary branches of the state has conducted anything to promote or demote its practices. Related instances from other societies, Taiwan included, are brought into comparison that might better inform us of China’s media performances.