
Net Neutrality Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal Was Written by Comcast Attorney - nkurz
https://theintercept.com/2017/12/14/that-net-neutrality-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-was-written-by-a-comcast-attorney/
======
Afforess
I am always impressed by the number of motte and bailey commentors here. The
WSJ cravenly lets the most hated corporations write featured Op-eds and that's
normal? Ho-hum? Business as usual!?

We need to seriously reconsider what we want out of journalism. I don't want
to live anywhere where this sort of media is okay. I'm not sure why anyone
else is suddenly okay with this either. The "Free Market" was supposed to be a
tool to more efficiently organize labor and capital, not _enslave us_. It is
supposed to work _for us_ , it is _our tool_. But if _readers_ are now _okay_
with _literal_ shilling in media, then that's it. We've been captured by our
own tools, slaves to our own machines.

I keep questioning my decision to have a Washington Post subscription, but
I'll sleep better tonight knowing it goes towards something that at least
_tries_ to be journalism.

~~~
darawk
Why shouldn't someone publish their view?

~~~
simonh
It can take a while to get used to the lingo:

Professional person that agrees with you - expert.

Professional person that disagrees with you - shill.

I’m conflicted on this. I do not think the Obama era measures are the be all
and end all of net neutrality legislation, but Trump’s blatant pro big
business and anticompetitive instincts are always a threat to consumer
interests. Whichever way we as individuals decide or lean, it’s always worth
listening to both sides of the argument.

~~~
dd36
Is it disagreement if it’s paid for? How’s it any different than an ad?

~~~
simonh
Suppose an attorney for the Electronic Frontier foundation posts an article or
opinion piece on a digital rights legal issue. This has happened many times
and I don’t remember ever seeing anyone call them a shill, yet they are a
professional person paid to argue on these issues in public and in court. How
is that different from advertising? How about legal experts on human rights?
Environmental activism? Is anyone working for Greenpace as a lawyer or
scientific adviser an environmentalist shill? If not, then how can we use that
slur against people working for energy companies?

I’m not some corporatist shill making this argument. I’m just making a liberal
plea for tolerance and respect in public discourse.

Legal experts on many different sides of many different debates have a
reasonable expectation to have their opinions and arguments heard in public
without harassment, abuse and intimidation. However there is a reasonable
expectation of disclosure of such interests.

The argument in this specific case seems to be n the amount of detail in the
disclosure, but the fact is he was a Democrat appointee and he works for a law
firm that represents Comcast. There was an attempt at some level of disclosure
and he wasn’t actually acting as an attorney for Comcast. I don’t think this
is as big a deal as is being made about it.

------
stephengillie
> _The op-ed contained an unusual disclaimer:_

>>> _Mr. Leibowitz was a Democratic commissioner at the FTC from 2004-13 and
chairman beginning in 2009. As a partner at the law firm Davis Polk &
Wardwell, he represents both technology companies and broadband providers._

> _The reference to both industries reads as an effort to be upfront about any
> potential conflict of interest, but also to suggest that Leibowitz has
> clients on both sides of the issue, so his argument is dispassionate. Tech
> companies, historically, support net neutrality, while broadband providers
> oppose it._

The op-ed was prefaced with a contextual paragraph. So this wasn't a "sleeper"
influencing public opinion, _a la_ Ender's Game. The WSJ made sure this
highly-public person was properly contextualized.

~~~
kurthr
The Op-ed was not prefaced by such a contextual paragraph.

Please see: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/everybody-calm-down-about-
net-n...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/everybody-calm-down-about-net-
neutrality-1513124905)

The second paragraph of the commentary by the The Intercept contained your
quoted section, which is at the end of the op-ed and not visible in the first
page of the paywalled opinion article.

~~~
stevenwoo
Fair point, but I wouldn't expect to see anything but a corporate friendly op-
ed in the Wall Street Journal, nor would I think anyone who regularly reads
the Wall Street Journal. Even the New York Times can be pretty
corporate/middle of the road.

~~~
danso
Op-eds are often supposed to be seen as different (and interesting) than what
the paper's editorial board and columnists typically argue. "Op-ed" is
supposed to be an abbreviation for "opposite editorial" \-- though of course
the pinion editor (who is usually part of the editorial board) has final say
in that

~~~
nkurz
I'd never before heard it claimed that "Op Ed" was short for "Opposite
Editorial", and had presumed it was short for the catchall "Opinion /
Editorial". But you are correct:
[https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/204681/op-ed-
or-...](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/204681/op-ed-or-
editorial).

It seems worth clarifying, though, that "Opposite" is referring to the layout
of the page (ie, the "facing the editorial page"), and not to the position in
the debate (not "arguing against the editorial position"). The two earliest
first cited usages in the OED makes this clear:

    
    
      1924   R. H. Lyman World Almanac 25/1 
        This ‘op. ed. page’ (page opposite the editorial page) is
        unique in American newspapers. It is a page of opinion in
        all the arts.
    
      1931   J. W. Barrett World, Flesh, & Messrs. Pulitzer iv. 82      
        Swope developed..the idea of a distinctive ‘opposite
        editorial page’ consisting of two ‘columnists’, one book
        reviewer and the daily output of the dramatic critic. We
        called this the ‘op-ed’ for short.

------
Spivak
It seems like the author is just looking for something to be angry about. He
ascribed his own meaning to a disclaimer in an article and then gets angry
that it doesn't meet his expectation. Worse than that is the fact that it
really shouldn't matter -- Jon Leibowitz could be head ball-fondler at Comcast
for all it matters to his argument. This entire piece is spreading massive
amounts of FUD because a guy wrote a thing and wasn't explicit _enough_ for
his taste.

My favorite bit:

> To go a step further, Leibowitz’s view is also wrong. Net neutrality
> supporters fear that kicking enforcement over to the FTC means that
> broadband providers would only get caught discriminating against websites
> after the fact. And the FTC is focusing on stopping “deception,” which
> critics have said could mean that if a company discloses to the customer it
> will block or throttle certain content, the agency won’t step in.

Author apparently doesn't understand that the following paragraph is
_literally_ the intended outcome of the plan. It's right there in explicit
detail on pg 133 of the plan.

> We eliminate the conduct rules adopted in the Title II Order—including the
> general conduct rule and the prohibitions on paid prioritization, blocking,
> and throttling. We do so for three reasons...

------
freetime2
I just don't see the issue here. They disclose that his law firm represents
broadband providers. That, the fact that it's an Op-Ed, and the content of the
article ought to be enough for readers to understand that it's an opinion
piece and likely to be biased.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
The same way people should be able to discern fake news from real? Sadly, most
people just aren't that discerning.

------
paule89
Is it just my techbubble, but how can such a law come through, if the general
public opposes it so much? I mean how corrupt or ignorant have you to be to
not notice this.

~~~
GeneralMayhem
>how can such a law come through, if the general public opposes it so much?

It's not a law, it's a decision made by a federal regulatory agency. Only
Congress can enact laws. The FCC commissioners are appointed by the president,
so they're more like a branch of the executive branch than anything else.
Congress can overrule them, but they're unlikely to do so under the current
makeup, because:

>how corrupt or ignorant have you to be

The Republican Party is plumbing new depths of corruption and ignorance by the
hour. Nothing would surprise me at this point.

~~~
matwood
Except it was a Republican who tried to move a NN type law through, and it was
the Democrats who only wanted to move forward with the common carrier
designation.

[https://morningconsult.com/2017/01/23/thune-net-
neutrality-r...](https://morningconsult.com/2017/01/23/thune-net-neutrality-
repeal-threat-bring-democrats-compromise/)

------
H99189
I wish all our energy being spent on NN would go towards breaking ISP
monopolies, it would achieve the same goals of NN including better services,
cheaper prices.

~~~
jjj2222mml
What would you do to break the ISP monopolies?

~~~
TheBeardKing
I'd decouple the content creation from the network delivery. How soon before
cable companies start zero-rating their own content? Also, local regulations
granting monopolies have to start being rolled back, or municipalities buy the
infrastructure from the ISPs and let them compete to use it.

------
thisisit
While there is a case to be made about news op-eds and their overall influence
this article is more noise than content. The disclaimer says he represents
_broadband providers_. There is no coming back even if it says _technology
companies_.

------
kapad
Paraphrasing the most relevant line in any comment on this article.

> Agree with it or not, it isn't, in fact it is expicitly not, objective
> journalism.

credits:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15931916](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15931916)

------
twobyfour
And if you expect the WSJ to be anything other than pro-corporate, I've got a
bridge to sell you.

~~~
soundwave106
I didn't expect anything different from the WSJ, but it's worth pointing out
that pro-net neutrality is also "corporate" in a way. Small to medium size
Internet commerce / content businesses have largely been the driving force
behind public awareness of net neutrality, in my opinion.

(I've noticed this time around that the largest Internet companies have
largely kept quiet about the issue this time around. The fact that there has
been such a big public response to this to me shows how important keeping an
Internet around that is more than just Google/Facebook/Amazon is.)

------
KasianFranks
Who exactly is leading the pack here?

------
kurthr
Well heck, the FCC decision^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d stand-up comedy was written by an
Verizon attorney so why not some comedy in the WSJ?

Edited for support: [https://gizmodo.com/fcc-chairman-is-laughing-at-
americans-wh...](https://gizmodo.com/fcc-chairman-is-laughing-at-americans-
who-dont-want-to-1795193063)
[https://youtu.be/DzHleu03fxY](https://youtu.be/DzHleu03fxY)

------
JonasJSchreiber
WSJ did a really good job with this too. I opened the News app on my iPad
after work today and found this story at the top of my feed. Their stories are
usually paywalled, so I was surprised they featured anywhere near the top, and
I tapped, curious.

The argument _did_ seem pretty fair and balanced. It presented both sides (or
seemed to). On reflection (and I wouldn't have reflected if not for The
Intercept's story) the article basically echoed Ajit Pai's argument saying
anyone who gets up in arms about regulating ISPs is overreacting.

And it _almost_ made me believe I was naive for thinking the repeal was a
grave moment in Internet history.

I don't know how they got the story so highly ranked on Apple News, but the
pessimist in me wants to say money changed hands.

~~~
vxNsr
When I went to the story I had to sign in... how'd you get around that?

~~~
vlozko
Apple News seems to give me full access without a subscription. I don’t know
if this is a temporary, promotional thing.

