Hypocrisy = NY Times Net Neutrality Editorial

In a fit of hypocrisy and total lack of self awareness, the New York Times ran an editorial today that criticized the fairness and appropriateness of the very Internet business model, a "walled garden," that the New York Times is adopting "very shortly" in order to survive.

• Today, the New York Times editorial board expressed support for the FCC's net neutrality economic regulations, and against "a walled garden somewhat like cable TV, where providers can decide what we can see, and at what price."
• Last week, Bloomberg reported that the Chairman and Publisher of the New York Times, Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., said: the NY Times would "start charging readers for online access 'very shortly.'''
  • Mr. Sulzberger went on to say: "We can no longer afford to have iPhone and iPad apps for free..."

Simply, the New York Times hypocritical editorial position is that the New York Times Co., which owns newspaper and broadcast distribution infrastructure, has the business freedom to erect pay walls and adopt a walled garden business model in order to earn a profit off their property and to fund their expensive business infrastructure, but competitive broadband providers should be banned by the FCC from having the same business freedom as the New York Times.

This is one of those precious "regulate thee, but not me" hypocritical moments for everyone to see.

• The New York Times editorial board has zero credibility criticizing others for doing exactly what the New York Times does.