Search

An article on Tuesday about Chinese censorship of digital communications began with a description of two interrupted cellphone calls, which were cited as possible examples of ''a host of evidence over the past several weeks'' that the authorities were increasing their monitoring efforts out of concern that antigovernment sentiment might spread from Arab countries. In one call, a Beijing entrepreneur lost his cellphone connection after he used the English word ''protest'' twice. In the second, a call was lost after the speaker twice used the Chinese term for protest. The article did not point out that in both cases, the recipients of the calls were in the Beijing bureau of The New York Times. Because scrutiny of press communications could easily be higher than for those of the public at large, the calls could not be assumed to represent a broader trend; therefore, those examples should not have been given such prominence in the article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]