Ted Cruz is wrong about Net neutrality

Net neutrality logoThe last thing any of us need is someone in a position of influence explaining Net neutrality but who doesn’t understand or doesn’t care to understand Net neutrality.

Yet, Ted Cruz has decided to do it anyway.

The junior Republican senator from Texas trumpeted his mischaracterization of the issue last week in the Washington Post opinion piece, “Regulating the Internet threatens entrepreneurial freedom,” in which he champions the idea that online innovation suffers unless the Internet is devoid of federal oversight.

The term “devoid” is not overstatement. Cruz prefers that Washington leave the Internet entirely in the hands of the legislative process, where service providers, market forces and special interests hold sway. To this end, he urges nullification of all Internet regulation, now framed within Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act.

In Cruz’s mind, Net neutrality “would put the government in charge of Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.”

In fact, Net neutrality refers to the Internet as it is now: a place where service providers and government agencies treat all online data equally and access is unlimited; a place where the powerless have as much influence as the powerful; a place where startup businesses can grow into corporations without monopolistic interference.

The issue became a big deal in April when the Federal Communications Commission agreed to consider a two-tiered system where Internet providers can set arbitrary rules on access. Then in May, the FCC also agreed to consider reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service, which would prevent providers from threatening to reduce access in exchange for fees.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (Photo by Getty Images)

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (Photo by Getty Images)

President Obama supports reclassification. Cruz however believes the providers should be in control because reclassification is just a nice way of saying the government will levy an Internet use tax. He has even gone as far as calling Net neutrality “Obamacare for the Internet,” a catchy little phrase that possesses a certain rubbery, pejorative quality certain to help it bounce around the Web for a while.

Never mind that it misrepresents both Net neutrality and Obamacare; Cruz is a Princeton and Harvard grad, a champion debater and a loyal partisan toady. Conservative straw polls rank him high among likely GOP presidential nominees in 2016.

It would tarnish Cruz’s carefully honed image for him to appear on the same side of an issue as the president. So, it makes more sense for him to mangle Net neutrality’s definition than risk political capital.

To be fair, the term “Net neutrality” is sufficiently vague enough that anyone with a flair for drama and self-promotion can abuse it with ease. One could easily argue that the term also means you’re indifferent about what happens to Internet.

If only it had a better name. Comedian John Oliver suggests that maybe Net neutrality’s working title should be more honest: “Preventing Cable Company F**kery.”

But that might be too honest for Ted Cruz.

3 reasons to avoid copying TV reporter’s F-word rant

GIF of Charlo Greene

Courtesy of PerezHilton.com

Until last Sunday, few people outside Anchorage, Alaska’s TV news audience knew of KTVA-TV reporter Charlo Greene.

She changed that in one second on a live broadcast and became a prime example of what not to do when leaving an employer.

In signing off from the CBS affiliate on Sept. 21, Greene acknowledged playing a key role in the story she was reporting on medical marijuana and announced that she was switching allegiance from journalism to the cause of legalizing marijuana use in Alaska by telling viewers “As for this job, well … f**k it. I quit.” She then walked off camera to leave a stunned news anchor stumble through damage control.

From Anchorage to Albany, N.Y., the Web went wild over Greene, known off-screen as Charlene Egbe. Links to her flameout appeared on hundreds of sites. A YouTube clip of it posted by the Alaska Dispatch News had 12 million hits by the following Thursday.

She did what many people dream of doing.

But the backstory makes her cavalier farewell far from heroic or enviable. Greene had opened her own medical marijuana dispensary in the months before producing a five-part news report for the station on Alaska’s legalization initiative. She also had legal trouble related to her advocacy. KTVA’s news director said in a public statement that Greene never disclosed her conflict of interest to the station.

The station has reason to be embarrassed, but so too does Greene. The Dispatch News reports that advocates for the initiative found fault with her reporting and that Greene says she went rogue mainly to reverse waning support for the legalization movement.

In a post-meltdown interview with Vice.com, Green ended with this:

“If you’re going to quit your job, do it big. Why not? Your job probably sucks, so go ahead and get whatever you can out of it.”

Sage advice perhaps for inconsiderate nonconformists but toxic for everyone else. A truly effective workplace exit impresses both ex-employers and potential employers and preserves the shine on one’s own reputation.

By leaving KTVA the way she did, Greene badly bruised herself and the people around her in three ways:

By using vulgar language — We hear the F-word all the time in music, movies and casual conversation, but a stigma sticks to it in most professional and public venues, and usage is discouraged in workplaces, schools and stores. Greene demonstrated how the centuries-old F-word still cuts through our social sensibilities. However, the F-word is a one-trick pony; the second use lands a weaker punch than the first, and continued usage implies the user has a limited vocabulary — which undercuts anyone who works in communications.

By being unethical — Green apparently continued acting like a journalist even though in her mind she stopped being one. She told Vice.com that KTVA gave her a platform “to draw attention to the (marijuana legalization) issue” and hinted that her outburst formed sometime between Sunday and April 20, the date Greene says the advocacy group she heads received its business license. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics says, “Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.” When professional ethics waft out the window with the pot smoke, credibility in all things likely follows.

By harming others — Greene obviously had her own interests in mind when she paraded her petulance. She neglected to consider, or was indifferent to, the impact of her actions on others, and that could rebound in her face. The Federal Communications Commission has levied fines on broadcasters who permitted even accidental on-air uttering of F-words. KTVA is apologetic; still, accusations by supporters of the initiative that Greene let bias and inaccuracy seep into her reporting have raised questions about why KTVA considers Greene’s activities surprising. Meanwhile, marijuana-use advocates in Alaska and Colorado say Greene’s profane exhibition potentially weakens their efforts to advance the issue with maturity.

Had Greene remained professional and objective, KTVA lacked a reason to probe her work behavior or her privacy. Digging too deeply amid the latter risked violating her civil rights. Personal responsibility, not an employer, determines an individual’s credibility.

Andy Warhol once said, “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” This week, Charlo Greene received quite a bit more attention than that. Next week, nobody will take her seriously for even half as long.