He examines and responds to comments and complaints about the Globe's news and editorial content, and keeps the Globe staff aware of feedback.

E-mail him at ombud@globe.com or call (617) 929-3020. To leave a recorded message, call(617)929-3022

Stay in touch

Subscripe to this feed  

Add to My Yahoo  

Archives

What They Say

The ombudsman's column today - which can be found here - offers a sampling of the kinds of comments I get from readers and that I compile as a weekly internal report for all Globe journalists and executives.

The report, which contains anywhere from a dozen to three-dozen comments on a variety of Globe-related topics, is meant to give people inside the Globe a glimpse of how readers responded to the paper's work that week and to let readers know that their comments are seen by many people inside the newspaper.

The kinds of reader comments that are most often included in these reports are those that are to the point and specific about their criticism and those that offer suggestions for how the Globe can do things better. Of course, compliments are also welcome.
Comments that personally attack a specific reporter, columnist or other Globe staff person are not included, and I tend to avoid including emails sent as part of some internet-launched mass mailing, although I do mention such campaigns in the introduction of my reports.
I may not always agree readers' comments, but I believe those viewpoints should be seen by those who work at the Globe.

Here are a few more examples of the kinds of comments that were included in this week's WTS report:

I am so tired of reading these "conspiracy theory" articles about church closings (Weymouth parish rocked by another priest's departure, 1/23/06, B1). What part of "there are not enough priests in the Archdiocese" doesn't the Globe and the parishioners of this parish understand?
Many of the priests of closed parishes now are "circuit riders" in that they are sent on temporary assignments to whatever parish has the greatest need for additional staff. Apparently Fr. Bowers is one of them. St. Albert's already has a full time pastor, even if he is 75. They wanted their church to stay open and they got their wish. Now they want to change reality - Hello - there are not enough priests in the Archdiocese!
Given this story, I'm looking forward to a sympathetic article about how much some Globe readers miss Renee Graham, the Chat and the old Living Section, to name a few. Maybe there is a "conspiracy" afoot at The Globe? Why is it okay for The Globe to restructure its workforce, but the Archdiocese is not permitted to do so? The Globe's anti-Catholic bias is showing again. And you wonder why your readership is dropping....
Peg Grace
Massachusetts

Is it really necessary for the Globe in reporting on the new AWOL machine (Machine makes it easy to inhale hard liquor, 1/25/06, B1) to give detailed instructions on how to hook up an oxygen concentrator and an inhaler to construct such a unit? Thousands o homes have such machines and inhalers and many young people are going to follow the Globe's instructions to "see what it's like". What useful purpose is served? It is as though one completed a report on a bombing by giving full instructions on how to make a bomb! Is it really better reporting to show no common sense?
Robert M. Coquillette
Lexington, MA

I have three suggestions I would like to make concerning The Sidekick:
1. I like the Sidekick but dislike the very small creases that occur regularly in this paper. They seem to occur in the Jumble or the Crossword where they are especially annoying, masking either a portion of the answers in the case of the Jumble or causing one to misread the clues in the crossword puzzle. They also occur elsewhere in the paper usually in an article one is attempting to read.
2. Would it be possible to put a staple or two in the center of the crease to prevent it from flying a part when being read? This would be similar to that the Metro uses, which places the staples in the middle of the gap, making an even fold. The way you handle the Sidekick makes it look shoddy.
3. You are squeezing the type in the Sunday Funnies to the extent that they are beginning to be no fun to read. An example is in the center of the January 22, 2006 funnies occurs that I had to use a magnifying glass to read and lost my interest less than half way through and gave it up as a bad job.
John G. DePagter
Malden, MA

I wanted to thank you for bringing Beverly Beckham to the Globe! Reading Beverly's column elicits such a strong emotional reaction every week. Her stories are so heartfelt and real, that I can see her father, her dog, feel the wind in her hair as she swings with her childhood friend Rosemary, and hear her reading Brown Bear to her grandchildren, all of which she has written about so sincerely. I would love to see her column more often! Thanks again.
Michelle Cremins
Massachusetts

Is it "domestic spying?"

A few readers have contacted the ombudsman with questions about the Globe's use of the phrase "domestic spying" in its stories about the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program.

Here are two examples of the kinds of comments I received this week about the story, which ran on the front page of the Globe on Monday, Jan. 24 and can be seen here.

Nowhere in today’s story does the Globe explain what types of communication were allowed to be intercepted by the government as part of this alleged “domestic spying program.” Why not?
How can you so confidently label the program as "domestic spying" in both your headline and lede, yet explain nothing to your readers about the criteria used by the government to select communication for interception?
People who were uncertain of your commitment to objective reporting might find this symptomatic of what is popularly called "liberal bias". Please explain.
Harry Forbes
Dedham, MA

Why is it called "domestic spying" when it's only half of the telephone call and the other half is international? Why not call it "terrorist spying?" I think this is a question of interpretation where the Globe shows a bias.
Dave Prusky
Chelsea

Peter Canellos, the Globe's deputy managing editor and chief of the paper's Washington bureau, offered this explanation:

We've used spying, wiretapping, surveillance and probably a few other terms to describe Bush's NSA program. In the first few stories we explained in detail what was known about the program (the monitoring of overseas phone calls by Americans, etc.) and what was not known, such as the extent of the surveillance. Since then, the story has become broader -- a test of presidential authority in wartime, as applied to torture, the Patriot Act and detainee policy as well as the domestic spying program. In these broader stories, we needed a shorter way of describing the NSA program and more or less settled on "domestic spying."
We emphasize domestic because there are different sets of laws governing wiretapping of Americans and foreigners, and it's only the domestic side of these phone calls that has raised a furor. If we called it "spying on international phone calls and emails," or something like that, it could disguise the real issue. It could also cause confusion, as in sentences like "Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said he had "grave doubts" about President Bush's spying on international calls. . .," since the claim is that Bush has violated laws governing domestic surveillance.
As for spying, I think it's the clearest and most easily understood term. Wiretapping is not quite broad enough because the surveillance includes emails. Surveillance and eavesdropping are fine by the dictionary, but seem a little esoteric to me. Given the complex and legalistic subject matter, I think we should strive for the most easily understood term. (And while surveillance may be a less loaded term than spying, I'm not sure that's true of eavesdropping -- it sounds more polite, but no less intrusive.)

Many other newspapers and news organizations have used the "domestic spying" phrase. Some, like the New York Times, have used other terms, such as "domestic surveillance" or "eavesdropping" which seem, where the story stands now, a more balanced approach to describing the controversial program.

The readers speak

I've received many comments from readers in response to my last column on Sunday (1/15) regarding the Globe's errors and corrections for 2005.

I'm going to post some of the emails I received so that other readers can see what was said. I will also include some of these comments in the weekly internal report that I produce for all Globe journalists and executives where I compile the highlights of feedback from Globe readers on a variety of topics.

Since the Globe doesn't provide space to publish letters to the ombudsman, I will use this space on a regular basis to print some letters from readers.

Here's a sampling of comments received this week to the corrections column. You can see that column by clicking the link on the left side of this page.

Your explanations for the decrease in the number of corrections in 2005 from 2004 missed the glaringly obvious explanation: there were fewer corrections because you published fewer articles. If you had published the same number of articles in 2005 as you did in 2004, and if you experienced the same rate of corrections on the additional articles in 2005 as you did on the ones you actually published, the number of corrections would have actually increased to 1040.
In any case, I would suggest to you that the difference in the number of corrections is so small as to be meaningless.
Michael Miller
ISOM Department
Suffolk University

When you say the Globe published 57,893 stories in 2005, are you including copies of stories from other sources such as The A.P., as opposed to just written by the Globe staff. This would change the percentage of corrections to the number of actual Globe stories and make your analogy misleading at best.
Dick Brown.

Good point, but yes, the figure includes all stories - by Globe reporters and wire services. For example, there were 18 errors in the Globe that were attributed to Associated Press stories, according to Tuite's report.

You recently detailed mistakes in reporting, but did not mention the paper's increasing failure to detect mistakes in grammar and English usage. Perhaps you may wish to also include such "mistakes" in your next update.
Thank you for this consideration.
Jules Baum, M.D.

Regarding your column on Sunday regarding corrections, I have two suggestions that I think would help the Globe.
I regularly check the corrections in the print copy on page 2, and find it very helpful. However, the Globe does not always repeat the incorrect/orignal reporting. It would be much better to re-educate the reader by stating the mistake and then correcting it. By just listing the correction you're not always aware of what is being retracted.
I also read the Globe online and didn't realize until your column that corrections are linked to the article online. However, that doesn't help if you already read the article - why would you go back and read it again. That's why having all the day's (week's?)corrections listed together would improve the Globe's accuracy online - just like the page 2 column in print.
I would like to see the Globe always repeat the mistake in the corrections column, and have a separate corrections section online.
Thanks,
Mitchell Rose

Boston.com offers a pretty comprehensive view of the Globe's corrections. You can see
those corrections here.

There were so many errors made in 2005 that I must conclude multiple errors are commonplace for all newspapers. What you accomplished in your piece was little more than bringing attention to this fact, while convincing the innocent (and boring the rest), that your paper is uniquely contrite for something all newspapers (and human beings) do. How self-serving to gloss over the damage done during this “confession.” Don’t bother!! How about taking real responsibility? If you really wanted to reveal something unique, interesting, and useful, you could have singled out the most egregious, damaging errors, who was responsible, and how much effort the Globe expended to correct them and the damage they did.
Jack Bukowski
Marlborough, MA

I thought you might appreciate this statistic. If the United States Post Office sustained the same error rate as the Globe (a rate which you seem to consider not particularly alarming) in the performance of its duties, it would have incorrectly delivered 3,723,318,339 pieces of mail last year. As the Post Office is one arguably one of the most maligned institutions in US, perhaps your seeming complacency is a bit naïve.
Warren Unck

Corrections in 2005

This is a supplement to the Ombudsman's column in Sunday's Globe (1/15) on the corrections the newspaper published in 2005.

This report, compiled by Globe head librarian Lisa Tuite, gives a deeper look at the kinds of errors the newspaper admitted to printing last year. As I noted in the column, there is no clear explanation why the total number of errors has declined since 2004. It may be that Globe journalists are being more careful and accurate. It may also be that readers and subjects of stories have been less inclined to report mistakes. But with all of the ways that people today can report errors - telephone, email and letters - that seems less likely.

One note: In my column, I mention that one reporter logged 10 errors. I didn't name the reporter because he no longer works at the Globe and I didn't have a chance to get a formal comment from him. I also didn't name the columnist with the most errors because it seemed unfair to single him out without naming the reporter. Since editing errors are not tracked by name as closely as reporters and columnists, I did not include a total figure for that category.

Here's a breakdown of the 2005 error report:

Summary By Section and Location of Error
Reporting from 1/2/2005 to 12/31/2005 (2004 figure)
City & Region 237 (234)
Living/Arts/Arts Etc. 122 (130)
National/Foreign 103 (141)
Business 60 (65)
Sports 56 (81)
City Weekly 42 (30)
Obits 41 (39)
Globe West 38 (49)
Globe South 37 (42)
Globe North 33 (24)
Globe Northwest 27 (27)
Op-ed 29 (28)
Editorial page 20 (11)
Magazine 17 (15)
Health \ Science 16 (23)
Life At Home 15 (13)
Ideas 13 (15)
Calendar 9 (17)
Sidekick 9 (section debuted June 2005)
Food 8 (9)
Real Estate 8 (7)
Travel 7 (11)
Boston Works 5 (1)
Letters to the Editor 5 (2)
Education 4 (4)
Special Sections 2 (4)
TV Week 2 (3)
Books 1 (6)

Where the errors appeared:
Story 732
Photo Caption 84
Graphic 67
Other 51
Headline 26
Sub-head 3

A new approach to child caring

Several Globe readers have complained about the Globe's decision to end the Child Caring column that has appeared in the Thursday Life At Home section.

Mary Beth Miotto, a pediatrician from Northborough, sent this note last week:
It has come to my attention that you have discontinued Barbara Meltz's parenting column from the Boston Globe. I am writing to implore you to reinstate this column.
I am a pediatrician who is also a child advocate in the Bay State. My husband, who is a surgeon, often comments that my patients seem to lose more sleep over parenting issues than over any other issue affecting their children. In this world of transient jobs,family moves across the state and the country, and on-the-go neighbors, some parents have literally NOBODY to turn to for parenting advice. They may seek out their pediatrician's advice, but that is sporadic. Their mothers may now have escaped the snow and be living in FL, and their neighbors are not having a coffee klatch. They are shuttling their kids around to activities or working.
Ms. Meltz's column tackled tough issues for parents - some issues like divorce and interfaith families that one might not even ask a friend about. I can assure you that this column is needed in today's Massachusetts.
Please consider reversing your decision. I know that Ms. Meltz may be asked to write features on occasion, but we are losing a valuable resource if her column is not a reliable part of the paper.

Barbara Meltz's parenting column, which has appeared in the Globe for 17 years, is being dropped as part of the new Thursday Arts & Style section that is set to debut on Thursday, Jan. 12. I received more than a dozen emails (many of them prompted by notices posted by internet websites).

A note from editors that has appeared in the Thursday Life At Home section explains that Meltz will continue to write on parenting and child care issues, but her weekly column will no longer appear on Thursdays.

Stephen Greenlee, the Globe's Living editor, offered this further clarification this week:

Her (Meltz's) column is not being killed. With Life At Home gone, Barbara moves to the Living staff, where she will continue to cover children and parenting. She will continue to write under the "Child Caring" label. She may not appear in the paper every week, because she will focus on the ambitious kinds of stories she has done in the past while probably not doing many of the straight advice columns.
She will, however, continue to chat online with readers, and some of her chats will be excerpted in the Sidekick section.

Barbara has clearly developed a loyal following with her column. It's reassuring that her insights won't disappear completely from the paper or from Boston.com. On Tuesday, I asked her for comment about the development and reaction from readers, and this is what she had to say in an email:

I'm happy to and appreciate the chance to say something, especially after writing the column for 17 (!!) years.
I think that I would say simply that I'm heartened to see the readers' comments, and especially to know that the column made a difference in their parenting lives. I'm sad to no longer be writing it and I wish the decision had been to simply move it from one section to another. But since that isn't what happened, I've been assured that I will still be able to write about some (but not all) of the same issues in a slightly different format.