Readers Say a ‘Net Neutrality’ Vote Was Reported Upside Down and Backward

[Commentary] Should a speedy Internet be available to everyone equally or are some users, in Orwell’s terms, “more equal than others”? Should there be “haves” and “have-nots” on the Internet, with the winners being large corporate or commercial users, as opposed to small businesses or regular people?

That’s the essence of the debate behind the high-stakes subject of “net neutrality,” which the Federal Communications Commission voted on recently.

“I’ve long become accustomed to news articles as well as editorials in the Times asserting that black is white or white is black, but for you to insist that the actions of the FCC will protect and enhance Internet neutrality is way over the top,” wrote one reader, William Edwards. And another, Robert Ofsevit, wrote a detailed critique, comparing the headline in The Times, “FCC Vote Paves the Way for New Open Internet Rules” unfavorably with a more direct headline on a Reuters story that ran on Huffington Post: “FCC Votes for Plan to Kill Net Neutrality.”

He wrote: “The writer denigrates and marginalizes ‘some opponents’ of Chairman Wheeler’s plan, and “net neutrality purists” who view the plan as killing net neutrality. In fact, these are not fringe views held only by ‘purists.’” My take: I’m with the critics on this one. While I’m no expert, I don’t think the issues here really are all that muddy. Maybe this makes me a purist, but as I see it, this FCC vote was a clear strike against the commonly understood idea of net neutrality, and The Times should have written and presented it that way.