Weigh in?

Reader question:

Please explain “weigh in” in this sentence: Do voters get a chance to weigh in on the issue?

My comments:

In other words, do voters have any say on the issue?

Sounds right, right?

Right, but what does “weight” got to do with it? And weigh IN?

To “weigh in” means for voters to participate in debating the issue, whatever that is, and perhaps get a chance to, since we’re talking about weight, throw their weight around a bit.

Let me explain. Before a formal professional boxing match, for example, a boxer walks on the scales to record his – or her – particular weight. This procedure is called the weigh-in. Boxers’ weights need to be within certain boundaries to make ensure fair fights, for, obviously, a guy weighing 200 pounds has a huge advantage over someone who weighs 100 pounds.

So they do the weigh-in, to literally pass the weight test and signal that they’re officially “in” – in the fight.

Also, at airports, before passengers board their plane, they are asked to weigh their baggage – to make sure that they do not carry a luggage exceeding free weight limits.

You can also call this a weigh-in, WEIGH your luggage before you’re allowed IN – into the plane.

So, to weigh in on an issue is to participate in it – in debates and discussions surrounding the issue.

WEIGH in also suggests that your ideas and opinions carry some weight, like a sumo player carrying some weight – some considerable weight in that case.

And, since sumo wrestlers literally throw their weight around on the mat, you’re supposed to likewise throw your ideological weight and persuasion powers around and, hopefully, make a dint.

In other words, have your say and make an influence on the matter.

In another phrase, make your presence felt.

All right?

All right. Let’s read a few media examples of people deciding to weigh in or not to weigh in on a particular issue:

1. As a late-blooming Civil War buff, I have mixed feelings about the recently renewed national push to remove Confederate monuments across the nation.

On one hand, the removal of hundreds of Confederate and related statues bears a troubling resemblance to efforts by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin or the Islamic State to selectively erase inconvenient history.

But when President Donald Trump decided to weigh in on the side of preserving public Confederate icons as “beautiful,” my dilemma vanished. Trump managed to be for them in a way that turned me against them.

“Sorry to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful status and monuments,” he wrote in a series of tweets. “You can’t change history but you can learn from it. Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson – who’s next? Washington? Jefferson? So foolish! Also the beauty that is being taken out of our cities, towns and parks will be greatly missed and never able to be comparably replaced.”

“Beauty” is in the eye of the beholder. For a man who claims to care about “history and culture,” Trump conveniently mangles both.

In fact, no one is talking about ripping the nation apart, although Trump was doing an impressively good job of that.

Unlike the Confederacy’s generals and politicians, for example, Washington and Jefferson didn’t take up arms against the United States government and its people.

Statues that glorify Confederate leaders are themselves an attempt to distort history. Most Confederate monuments were built decades after the war by supporters of “the Lost Cause,” a post-war movement to recast secession as a heroic struggle by slave states against impossible odds – while minimizing the central role of slavery as the war’s main cause.

President Trump knows something about distorting history. He launched his political career, let us not forget, by peddling bogus theories about President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

He also was not known to have cared much about preserving Confederate statues until a few days after a rally by white supremacists and neo-Nazis in support of a statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee turned violent in Charlottesville, Va.

- OPINION: Can our divided history bring us together? By Clarence Page, DaytonDailyNews.com, August 18, 2017.

2. With politics increasingly dominating media and entertainment, some celebrities are choosing not to weigh in on political commentary amid America’s ongoing culture wars.

Hollywood stars such as Kevin James, Neil Patrick Harris and Michelle Yeoh have recently either declined to comment on US politics or have made a conscious effort to avoid the topic.

During an interview with Variety on Thursday, James opened up about why he’s always steered clear of speaking about politics.

“Politically, for me to speak on it, there are experts who know much more than I do,” James told the outlet. “I’m just focusing on what I can do, delivering a fun, heartfelt break from the craziness of the world.”

“Everybody carries themselves around all day long with a lot of stress,” he continued. “It’s necessary in some ways, but you also need a break. You’ve got to look around and find the good in things. Otherwise, you’re just not going to function. I want to make people have fun, have hope and get a nice escape in their day.”

As noted by Variety, James is “famously apolitical” and sticks to what he does best – making people laugh.

Another actor known for his comedic roles, Neil Patrick Harris, recently declined to comment when pressed with political questions at a Friday press conference for his newest film, “Sunny Dancer.”

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Harris was asked whether films should be political and if cinema could be used to “fight fascism.”

“I think we live in a strangely algorithmic and divided world right now, and so as artists, I’m always interested in doing things that are apolitical,” Harris said. “Because we’re all, as humans, wanting to connect in some way.”

“That’s why we experience things together,” the actor continued. “And so when you get to go to a film where you’re caring about the people, you’re caring about the heart of what’s happening, you’re watching this film of these young adults growing up under the umbrella of a world where some of them won’t, and I think that is so touching and also kind of exciting and rebellious and horny, and then it’s fun to be able to witness that without having to process it through a contemporary lens. Right?”

…

Michelle Yeoh, co-star of “Crazy Rich Asians,” declined to weigh in on politics while speaking to reporters during a press conference at the Berlin Film Festival on Friday.

- More Hollywood stars are choosing silence over political commentary in heated climate, FoxNews.com, February 2026.

3. The critics are weighing in on the big-budget Michael Jackson biopic Michael, which releases globally this weekend.

Directed by Antoine Fuqua and written by John Logan, the movie covers the Jackson 5 period in the early ’60s through to the iconic singer’s early solo career. The “King of Pop” is played by his nephew Jaafar Jackson in his film debut with support from Nia Long, Laura Harrier, Miles Teller, Colman Domingo and more.

While the film seemingly is on course to do some strong box office and can call on a huge built-in fan base, the Lionsgate musical is encountering some choppy critical reaction, at least according to the early returns. The film is currently running at 27% from 48 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

Deadline’s Pete Hammond had one of the more positive responses to the film, writing: “The iconic songs you hear from ‘Billie Jean’ to ‘Beat It’ to ‘Thriller’ to ‘Ben’ are all vintage MJ, gloriously remastered and superbly lip-synched by Jaafar and Juliano Valdi, who plays the younger Michael. Jaafar’s casting might have seemed a bit too all in the family, but the fact that he doesn’t do his own singing didn’t bother me, because this guy channels Uncle Michael in uncanny ways and simply sells this performance with all the right dance moves and sharp dramatic talent to make us believe Michael Jackson is once again with us.”

Jaafar Jackson “dazzles” in the “feel-good” biopic, which will be “eaten up by fans,” Hammond added.

USA Today was also in favor, giving it three stars out of four and heralding a “new star in Jaafar Jackson”: “The film reminds the generations who witnessed Jackson’s ascension in real time of the extent of his singularity and educates younger audiences about the magnitude of his talent and scope.”

…

Many others weren’t so upbeat. Roger Ebert gave the movie one star, positing of the family’s involvement in the project: “In every cloying moment, you can notice their fingerprints all over this plastic jukebox picture. ‘Michael’ has already caused many to question what’s missing: Janet Jackson (who indeed doesn’t exist in this “universe”) and any reference to the singer’s legal troubles (though that bankrupted moral and narratively cowardly positioning by Fuqua certainly doesn’t help either). But the absence of those elements isn’t what breaks this insipid biopic. It’s the lack of any complex interest in Michael himself.”

The BBC also was damning about the film, giving it one star and describing it as “a bland and barely competent daytime TV movie.”

- ‘Michael’: What The Critics Are Saying About The Michael Jackson Biopic, Deadline.com, April 21, 2026.

本文仅代表作者本人观点，与本网立场无关。欢迎大家讨论学术问题，尊重他人，禁止人身攻击和发布一切违反国家现行法律法规的内容。

About the author:

Zhang Xin is Trainer at chinadaily.com.cn. He has been with China Daily since 1988, when he graduated from Beijing Foreign Studies University. Write him at: zhangxin@chinadaily.com.cn, or raise a question for potential use in a future column.

（作者：张欣）