The Washington Post Needs to Come Clean on Net Neutrality
Oct 05, 2009
A Washington Post blog post published Monday hits on one central reason for making Net Neutrality the law.
In "Protecting Free Speech in the Digital Age, " guest blogger Dawn Nunziato says that free speech on the Internet is too important to be subject to the whims of powerful phone and cable companies -- companies that have already demonstrated their willingness to block new ideas and innovations via the Web.
Nunziato is spot on. But a blog post doesn't go nearly far enough to right the wrong the Post's editors committed the Monday before, when they printed a full-fledged editorial against Net Neutrality without revealing to readers that the Washington Post Co. has an economic incentive to block online speech.
The Post's Sept. 28 editorial, "The FCC's Heavy Hand," was gift wrapped for the narrow special interests of the influential phone and cable lobby. The editorial states that Net Neutrality would hurt investment in a "vibrant and well-functioning marketplace." In fact, the opposite is true: Carriers working under neutrality conditions have invested tens of billions of dollars in network buildout and improvements.
(For more on this, read our recent brief: Digital Deja Vu: Old Myths about Net Neutrality.)
The Post editorial suffers not only from inaccuracy, but also from lack of disclosure. One of the companies that stands to gain from a world without Net Neutrality is Cable One, an Internet service provider active in 19 states that hopes to pad its already considerable profits by stifling the free flow of online communications. One of the principal owners of Cable One is - you guessed it -- the Washington Post Co.
Cable One Chief Executive Tom Might has been an outspoken opponent of Net Neutrality, calling it "a very, very clever D.C. campaign" designed to intimidate politicians "because it sounds so wonderful, like Mom and apple pie."
Given the Post's recent controversy over paid editorial salons, the paper would do well to better mind the firewall that allegedly separates news operations from business back offices.
Readers should demand that the Post's ombudsman and editorial page editor clarify this obvious oversight. You can prompt them to respond by sending an e-mail to: ombudsman@washpost.com. Fred Hiatt, the editor of the Post's editorial page, can be reached at hiattf@washpost.com .
The paper should come clean whenever it presents as honest opinion a view that also protects its commercial interests.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Tim Karr is a senior director at Free Press, the U.S.-based organization that advocates for more just and democratic media.
A Washington Post blog post published Monday hits on one central reason for making Net Neutrality the law.
In "Protecting Free Speech in the Digital Age, " guest blogger Dawn Nunziato says that free speech on the Internet is too important to be subject to the whims of powerful phone and cable companies -- companies that have already demonstrated their willingness to block new ideas and innovations via the Web.
Nunziato is spot on. But a blog post doesn't go nearly far enough to right the wrong the Post's editors committed the Monday before, when they printed a full-fledged editorial against Net Neutrality without revealing to readers that the Washington Post Co. has an economic incentive to block online speech.
The Post's Sept. 28 editorial, "The FCC's Heavy Hand," was gift wrapped for the narrow special interests of the influential phone and cable lobby. The editorial states that Net Neutrality would hurt investment in a "vibrant and well-functioning marketplace." In fact, the opposite is true: Carriers working under neutrality conditions have invested tens of billions of dollars in network buildout and improvements.
(For more on this, read our recent brief: Digital Deja Vu: Old Myths about Net Neutrality.)
The Post editorial suffers not only from inaccuracy, but also from lack of disclosure. One of the companies that stands to gain from a world without Net Neutrality is Cable One, an Internet service provider active in 19 states that hopes to pad its already considerable profits by stifling the free flow of online communications. One of the principal owners of Cable One is - you guessed it -- the Washington Post Co.
Cable One Chief Executive Tom Might has been an outspoken opponent of Net Neutrality, calling it "a very, very clever D.C. campaign" designed to intimidate politicians "because it sounds so wonderful, like Mom and apple pie."
Given the Post's recent controversy over paid editorial salons, the paper would do well to better mind the firewall that allegedly separates news operations from business back offices.
Readers should demand that the Post's ombudsman and editorial page editor clarify this obvious oversight. You can prompt them to respond by sending an e-mail to: ombudsman@washpost.com. Fred Hiatt, the editor of the Post's editorial page, can be reached at hiattf@washpost.com .
The paper should come clean whenever it presents as honest opinion a view that also protects its commercial interests.
Tim Karr is a senior director at Free Press, the U.S.-based organization that advocates for more just and democratic media.
A Washington Post blog post published Monday hits on one central reason for making Net Neutrality the law.
In "Protecting Free Speech in the Digital Age, " guest blogger Dawn Nunziato says that free speech on the Internet is too important to be subject to the whims of powerful phone and cable companies -- companies that have already demonstrated their willingness to block new ideas and innovations via the Web.
Nunziato is spot on. But a blog post doesn't go nearly far enough to right the wrong the Post's editors committed the Monday before, when they printed a full-fledged editorial against Net Neutrality without revealing to readers that the Washington Post Co. has an economic incentive to block online speech.
The Post's Sept. 28 editorial, "The FCC's Heavy Hand," was gift wrapped for the narrow special interests of the influential phone and cable lobby. The editorial states that Net Neutrality would hurt investment in a "vibrant and well-functioning marketplace." In fact, the opposite is true: Carriers working under neutrality conditions have invested tens of billions of dollars in network buildout and improvements.
(For more on this, read our recent brief: Digital Deja Vu: Old Myths about Net Neutrality.)
The Post editorial suffers not only from inaccuracy, but also from lack of disclosure. One of the companies that stands to gain from a world without Net Neutrality is Cable One, an Internet service provider active in 19 states that hopes to pad its already considerable profits by stifling the free flow of online communications. One of the principal owners of Cable One is - you guessed it -- the Washington Post Co.
Cable One Chief Executive Tom Might has been an outspoken opponent of Net Neutrality, calling it "a very, very clever D.C. campaign" designed to intimidate politicians "because it sounds so wonderful, like Mom and apple pie."
Given the Post's recent controversy over paid editorial salons, the paper would do well to better mind the firewall that allegedly separates news operations from business back offices.
Readers should demand that the Post's ombudsman and editorial page editor clarify this obvious oversight. You can prompt them to respond by sending an e-mail to: ombudsman@washpost.com. Fred Hiatt, the editor of the Post's editorial page, can be reached at hiattf@washpost.com .
The paper should come clean whenever it presents as honest opinion a view that also protects its commercial interests.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.