I got an email from a friend with an image comparing two news reports on the big FCC vote that moves us closer to gutting net neutrality. After reading the Times' quote, it was so shockingly dishonest that my first response was, "it must be fake."
Wow. So I went to the NY Times website to confirm, because even I, who have known for years that the Times was nothing but a PR operation for the 1%, couldn't believe they fallen this low.
But it was real. The version they have up now is slightly scrubbed. But the version in the image apparently went out on the Times' wire service and is still available from scores of small newspapers.
Here's the cited quote again:
WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 Thursday to move forward with a set of proposed rules aimed at guaranteeing an open Internet, prohibiting high-speed Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against legal content flowing through their pipes.The rest of the article is just as bad, with little gems like this one:
While the rules are meant to prevent Internet providers from knowingly slowing data, they would allow content providers to pay for a guaranteed fast lane of service. Some opponents of the plan, those considered net neutrality purists, argue that allowing some content to be sent along a fast lane would essentially discriminate against other content.Hey, the New York Times is employing the technique of propagandist assholes everywhere by calling their opponents "purists". I'm impressed.
Of course, the real asshollery of that last paragraph is claiming that the "rules are meant to prevent Internet providers from knowingly slowing data."
This is just a blatant, transparent, and indisputable lie..
The New York Times is no better than Fox News. In fact, it's actually worse. Because they are perceived to be credible. "The Gray Lady" and all that rubbish. As such, they do far more damage than Fox will ever do.
Well, if you had any doubt, this should put an end to it. The New York Times is just another lying piece of propaganda, at best. At worst, it is strangely similar to a troll on an internet forum. And the sooner it dies, the better off we'll be.
Which reminds me. What happened to all that? I thought informing the people just "wasn't profitable anymore in the internet age" and all these papers were going to have to shut their doors?