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

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.