Media Coverage of Net Neutrality Uneven, Agree Experts on All Sides

The views on media accuracy of Daniel Alvarez, wireline aide to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, resembled those of other panelists. "These are very, very difficult issues," and complex for the FCC and journalists, said Alvarez. For the "many people writing about this who do not always" cover it or know FCC basics like what an NPRM is, "it’s harder for these folks to be able to convey the complexity and sort of the subtlety of these issues," he said. "That’s when we get phone calls from constituents asking why are we breaking the Internet." Though he can't "imagine" small newspapers covering it, it's good they do given the importance of the topic, said Alvarez. "We all have a lot of work to do" to make it an easier-to-convey issue, he said.

Whether media wrongly equate reclassification as bringing utility-like rules to ISPs that could include rate regulation depended on the net neutrality stance of some of the stakeholders. Policy Counsel Lauren Wilson of reclassification proponent Free Press said that linking Title II to such heavy regulation isn't accurate. There is "pervassive misrepresentation" of equating Title II with rules, when it's "really just authority" that would let the FCC make rules, she said. It's "a little bit unfair" to link Title II to public utility rules or monopoly-era rules intended for plain old telephone service, as Free Press isn't seeking those things, said Wilson. "It’s a compelling narrative, because so many people know what utilities are."

President Randolph May of net neutrality rule opponent Free State Foundation tried to get Wilson to declare that Free Press doesn't want the FCC to regulate broadband prices. Free Press has never said it wants rate regulation, Wilson replied.

Panelists disagreed whether net neutrality rules if enacted would run up against First Amendment rights of ISPs. The FCC gives that "short shrift" because it wants authority to prevent online discrimination, said May. "There is a serious First Amendment issue here, and journalists have not even thought about exploring the issue." There isn't much "chatter" from media companies about free speech and net neutrality "because they are conflicted," said Lucy Dalglish, dean of University of Maryland's Merrill College of Journalism. Journalists at media companies "use the Internet to gather information; they want to do that freely," she said. "This is a much, much more complicated issue" than it sometimes appears "on the surface," added the lawyer and former journalist. Wilson doesn't view ISPs as speakers from a First Amendment standpoint, because they market broadband as a transmission service and don't style themselves as content providers. "That’s a pretty tough case to make" that ISPs are speakers, she said.

Panelists agreed that the quality of media coverage of the issue varies widely. Chief Research and Policy Officer Nicol Turner-Lee of the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, which backs net neutrality rules but not reclassification, said journalists need to keep their "integrity" when covering the issue. She cited some coverage she said was unfair of MMTC. Don't "‘look at the online space as this sort of quick fix to jump into the debate," which would benefit from longer-term investigative reporting that treats the issue fairly, said Turner-Lee. The several million comments the FCC has received on the net neutrality NPRM and the webpage hits for news coverage of the issue demonstrate "it's a really big story that is unlikely to go away for a while," said Gautham Nagesh, who reports on the FCC for The Wall Street Journal. While some are critical of "consumer-facing publications’" coverage of net neutrality, he is "amazed" at the quality and quantity of coverage. "People are a little bit reductive in their treatment of Title II," he conceded, but "the authority does include rate regulation."