FCC Surpasses Orwell

orwell-truth Zerobama promised his suckers constituents net neutrality. They are getting the exact usual. Per The Wall Street Journal:

The Federal Communications Commission advanced new Internet rules that would ban broadband providers from blocking or slowing down websites, but allow them to strike deals with content companies for preferential treatment.

So, those who own the roads can’t slow somebody down, but can sell access to faster routes? Only in America, folks, does such blatant DoubleThink get reported straight out, without the slightest snicker or blush.

Of course, how do Comcast and its soon-to-be-acquired “rivals” own the road? Graft, pure and plain.

And check out the ultimate Obamian trick the FCC is now using to finish sealing the deal:

The broadband providers have signaled that they can live with Mr. Wheeler’s approach as drafted.

Democratic commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Mignon Clyburn joined Mr. Wheeler in voting to advance the notice of proposed rule-making, which will now be open to public comment for 60 days, followed by another 60 days for replies.

Observers expect unprecedented engagement during the comment period, but it remains to be seen how much the final proposal shifts from what Mr. Wheeler has already proposed. Mr. Wheeler’s proposal assumes a strong FCC would aggressively police deals between providers and content companies.

Yes, it certainly does remain to be seen. Any wagers?

Meanwhile, here’s what the WSJ says about the Democratic Party:

Democrats are largely in favor of net neutrality but still divided on the best approach, with a few favoring reclassification and others still on the fence. Mr. Wheeler’s approach also has found favor with some Democrats who worry reclassification would kill investment in broadband deployment.

Translation? Five words: “The Democrats oppose net neutrality.”

2 Replies to “FCC Surpasses Orwell”

  1. Although this is splitting hairs, I’d argue the NYTimes is the champion of Orwellian language. Oh, the passive voice, the faux thoughtfulness, the measured timidity, the concern of being “reasonable”, and “moderate”, oh my. Still, this this here thing is a very fine example of the language of “defending the indefensible” (Orwell’s words again)

  2. Quite so, Marla, and I don’t think you’re splitting a hair there, either. In fact, the reason I quoted the WSJ here is that their report was at least somewhat translatable and in contact with key facts. The NYT was so busy telling us the comment collection charade is a move toward, rather than away from, net neutrality, its coverage was simply Mad Hatter talk, a complete hash-up of reality. In many such cases, the NYT is worse than the WSJ. That speaks to the ideological role played by the former, particularly among liberals.

    I like Alex Cockburn’s old line — wish I could locate the actual quote! — about one role of the news media being to make complex nonsense out of the simplest stories.

Comments are closed.