12 ms·

> 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 partn

> 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 9y ago
The Op-ed was not prefaced by such a contextual paragraph. Please see: https://www.wsj.com/articles/everybody-calm-down-about-net-neutrality-1513124905 https://www.wsj.com/articles/everybody-calm-down-about-net-n... 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 9y ago
  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.
  - vxNsr 9y ago
    The WSJ regularly had Op-eds from Obama and other democrats, they even allowed the Iranian president a space to spew his hate. I'd argue they are just as open about who can write in their op-eds as any large newspaper.
  - danso 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      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-editorial https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/204681/op-ed-or-.... 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.
- freetime2 9y ago
  You are correct about the contextual paragraph being at the end of the article and not the beginning. I try to avoid reading Op-Eds for the most part, but I believe it is quite common (maybe even standard practice?) for them to come at the end of the article rather than the beginning. And if the contextual paragraph comes at the end of the article, then it follows that it would be behind a paywall that only shows the first paragraph to non-subscribers.
  - kurthr 9y ago
    My point is that The Intercept did a better job of including the important information as it was cited up-post in a useful location for the reader than did the actual original article that was (in error) being defended as clear. You can dismiss this, and perhaps everything in the thread and/or the WSJ, but if it's worth posting, it's worth being accurate. But, if it's all so unimportant that nobody on this thread cares, then why post any comments about it at all? That's my question, because personally I find funny the parts I don't find sad. Seriously, did you watch the comedy videos included in the decision by the chairman and the preceding industry event? They are included in my flagged comment below.
- vxNsr 9y ago
  Here's the important dog-whistle: >Consider the core principles of net neutrality, which I have long supported: unfettered access of the entire (lawful) internet and transparency about broadband providers’ practices. [emphasis mine] Only Comcast and its cronies feel the need to "contextualize" with "lawful" everyone who actually supports NN doesn't feel that need.
  - Jasper_ 9y ago
    From page 7 of the 2015 Open Internet Order ( https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pd... ): > No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service must get what they have paid for—access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet. This essential and well-accepted principle has long been a tenet of Commission policy, stretching back to its landmark decision in Carterfone, which protected a customer’s right to connect a telephone to the monopoly telephone network. They're quoting the official order, written by Net Neutrality supporters.
    - SauciestGNU 9y ago
      I would like to add that many net neutrality supporters were upset with the "lawful" language being included at the time. I'm sure if you look at some old threads here you can see it discussed. It opens the door to blocking protocols (like BitTorrent, which Comcast has been caught blocking in the past) that have a reputation for being used unlawfully. I also wonder if it would be a way to block things like tor, which have an unsavory reputation to many people.

kurthr 9y ago

The Op-ed was not prefaced by such a contextual paragraph. Please see: https://www.wsj.com/articles/everybody-calm-down-about-net-neutrality-1513124905 https://www.wsj.com/articles/everybody-calm-down-about-net-n... 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 9y ago
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.
- vxNsr 9y ago
  The WSJ regularly had Op-eds from Obama and other democrats, they even allowed the Iranian president a space to spew his hate. I'd argue they are just as open about who can write in their op-eds as any large newspaper.
- danso 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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-editorial https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/204681/op-ed-or-.... 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.
freetime2 9y ago
You are correct about the contextual paragraph being at the end of the article and not the beginning. I try to avoid reading Op-Eds for the most part, but I believe it is quite common (maybe even standard practice?) for them to come at the end of the article rather than the beginning. And if the contextual paragraph comes at the end of the article, then it follows that it would be behind a paywall that only shows the first paragraph to non-subscribers.
- kurthr 9y ago
  My point is that The Intercept did a better job of including the important information as it was cited up-post in a useful location for the reader than did the actual original article that was (in error) being defended as clear. You can dismiss this, and perhaps everything in the thread and/or the WSJ, but if it's worth posting, it's worth being accurate. But, if it's all so unimportant that nobody on this thread cares, then why post any comments about it at all? That's my question, because personally I find funny the parts I don't find sad. Seriously, did you watch the comedy videos included in the decision by the chairman and the preceding industry event? They are included in my flagged comment below.
vxNsr 9y ago
Here's the important dog-whistle: >Consider the core principles of net neutrality, which I have long supported: unfettered access of the entire (lawful) internet and transparency about broadband providers’ practices. [emphasis mine] Only Comcast and its cronies feel the need to "contextualize" with "lawful" everyone who actually supports NN doesn't feel that need.
- Jasper_ 9y ago
  From page 7 of the 2015 Open Internet Order ( https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pd... ): > No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service must get what they have paid for—access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet. This essential and well-accepted principle has long been a tenet of Commission policy, stretching back to its landmark decision in Carterfone, which protected a customer’s right to connect a telephone to the monopoly telephone network. They're quoting the official order, written by Net Neutrality supporters.
  - SauciestGNU 9y ago
    I would like to add that many net neutrality supporters were upset with the "lawful" language being included at the time. I'm sure if you look at some old threads here you can see it discussed. It opens the door to blocking protocols (like BitTorrent, which Comcast has been caught blocking in the past) that have a reputation for being used unlawfully. I also wonder if it would be a way to block things like tor, which have an unsavory reputation to many people.