Scott Rosenberg on Kumar/Rhoads Net Neutrality Mess

Scott Rosenberg neatly clarifies the missteps involved in the messy WSJ piece about the Obama administration’s ‘softening’ on net neutrality:

[from Scott Rosenberg’s Wordyard » Blog Archive » Journal steps in Net neutrality hornet’s nest]

[…]

Admittedly, the Net neutrality issue is complex, both technically and as a legal/policy matter. But it’s precisely the sort of topic that the Wall Street Journal is supposed to get right. And both key subjects of the story, Google and Lessig, have now stepped forward to say that the story is simply wrong.

[…]

The Journal Web site offered a roundup of critical response to the story this morning. But it’s interesting to note the tone and substance of this roundup: Its lead says that the article “certainly got a rise out of the blogosphere.” It goes on to list a variety of responses to the piece, without ever dealing with the heart of the issue, which is that the key players in the story say that the story is wrong.

The Journal roundup describes Lessig as “critical of the story” but fails to say why. What Lessig says is that the original WSJ piece claimed that he had shifted his position on the issue, and he has not done so: unlike some others in the Net neutrality camp, he has consistently supported the idea of “fast lanes” on the Web as long as everyone has equal access to them.

Net neutrality isn’t easy to explain. But the Journal story had more room than most to try to do so. Even if the writers believe that Google’s explanation of its position is somehow deceptive or insincere, they owe it to their readers to include that argument. The initial story’s failures are only compounded by the follow-up roundup, which purports to cover the bases of Web reactions but leaves out the most importance responses.

This happens all the time: A newspaper does a shoddy job of covering a complex issue; then, when people raise questions about the story’s accuracy, the paper views their criticism as sour grapes, and never bothers to deal with the substance of the complaints.

This is another telling example of the desire for sensationalism and oversimplification of complex issues, coupled with the need for 700 words for the newshole at 5pm, that has led to the catastrophic failure of print journalism to support open social dialogue.

In this case, the not only got the basics wrong, they got the positions of the players wrong, and spun the whole story around that.

Is there an award for the worst journalism of the year? This should be nominated.

[via @jayrosen_nyu]