Telegram is where we really talk. Don't miss out!
One of the most frustrating aspects of media ‘fact-checking’ is the tendency to redefine words in ways that obscure their true meaning. This week, we witnessed such a reaction to the news that the Biden Justice Department conducted surveillance on eight Republican senators.
Critics argue that it’s not spying—rather, it’s ‘unannounced monitoring,’ ‘secret scrutiny,’ or ‘quiet stalking.’ They suggest it’s only considered spying if it originates from an unfavorable area of Washington, D.C.; otherwise, it’s merely ‘sparkling surveillance.’
In 2023, then-special counsel Jack Smith instructed FBI agents to gather phone data from eight GOP lawmakers: Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Dan Sullivan (R-AK), as reported by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA).
Grassley noted that federal investigators used specific procedures to conceal this operation.
The data collection focused on calls made in early January 2021 and occurred without the senators’ consent or knowledge. It included details such as the numbers called, the callers’ locations at the time of the calls, the times and dates, and the duration of the calls. Importantly, the content of the calls was not reviewed. It’s also worth noting that five of the eight senators had previously signed a letter calling for a delay in certifying the 2020 presidential election results.
According to Grassley, the operation was further obscured by the FBI’s ‘Prohibited Access’ protocols, which allow agents to withhold certain records from their colleagues. The operation only came to light due to whistleblowers within federal law enforcement.
The legality of Smith and the FBI’s actions is one debate; whether it constitutes ‘spying’ is another. Does it involve ‘the secret gathering of information on others’? It would seem reasonable to classify it as such without distorting the widely accepted definition of the term.
For some in the media, however, the interpretation of words shifts dramatically based on context.
MSNBC justice correspondent Ken Dilanian, who faced backlash from the Los Angeles Times in 2014 for submitting his work to CIA officials for approval, claimed, “senators weren’t wiretapped or spied on.” He maintained that their calling records were lawfully obtained by FBI agents investigating Donald Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the election.
In essence, they weren’t spied on—only their phone records were collected without their knowledge! A significant distinction!
CNN also stated that “the evidence” does not align with the traditional understanding of ‘spying.’
In similar media circles, the narrative shifted from ‘this isn’t spying’ to a mix of ‘what happened was normal’ and ‘what transpired was entirely justified.’
“It actually seems sort of obvious that if you’re investigating a former president of the United States for trying to subvert an election,” remarked Politico’s Kyle Cheney, “you’d probe some of the contacts he and alleged co-conspirators had with those he was trying to enlist or pressure to overturn the results.”
Others dismissed Grassley’s announcement as a mere political stunt, with MSNBC legal analyst Catherine Christian suggesting that unannounced data sweeps of U.S. senators are commonplace. “It makes sense that the special counsel would want to know who these particular senators called during January 4 to January 7, 2021,” she stated, adding that such actions are typical in investigations.
In response to these assertions, it is noteworthy that not a single network reported on Grassley’s allegations the day they were made public. However, they did cover unrelated topics such as Taylor Swift’s latest music video and LeBron James’s upcoming decisions. This selective coverage may indicate bias through omission.
Ultimately, this situation serves to downplay the reality that a Democratic administration conducted surveillance on Republican senators. This is an undeniable fact. Yet, some media members refuse to accept that ‘spying’ carries its conventional meaning. There seems to be a reluctance to acknowledge the truth that ‘A Democratic administration spied on Republican senators.’
This frustration mirrors the dismissive reactions from journalists when President Donald Trump and his allies claimed that the Obama administration spied on the 2016 GOP presidential campaign.
Journalists insisted that the Obama administration did not spy; rather, the Justice Department simply used an FBI informant to engage with Trump campaign officials. They argue it only surveilled another campaign official using questionable FISA warrants.
One of the most memorable defenses from the New York Times was, “FBI used informant to investigate Russia ties to campaign, not to spy.”
It’s not spying; it’s using an informant!
Whether the actions taken by the Obama administration or Smith were justified is a separate issue. Just don’t underestimate your audience’s understanding of the term ‘spy.’
Becket Adams is a writer in Washington and program director for the National Journalism Center.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYPqvD7yu0E
https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1975384789617418526
