The buy generic synthroid BMJ define a systematic review as "an overview of primary buy lumigan cheapest alternatives india studies that used explicit and reproducible methods." It is also cheap quinine essential to seek immediate help if shingles are near the purchase vibramycin online eye or ear to avoid complications such as hearing and viagra no rx required vision loss. If doctors cannot quickly determine the cause of arcoxia without prescription chronic hives, there are steps people can take to reduce cialis uk discomfort. Hyperammonemia can be due to genetic disorders or acquired cialis overdose online purchase free health problems, such as liver disease or kidney failure. HS erythromycin order is a long-term skin condition that causes repeated breakouts of cialis overnight painful, inflamed lumps deep in the skin. The recommended dosage levitra in us of Monjuvi for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is based cheapest accutane side effects dose on your body weight. The AAD explains that while a estradiol valerate prescription shingles rash can develop anywhere on the body, it is most.

The FCC held hearings at Harvard last spring in which Comcast was challenged on its practice of manipulating the data stream reaching consumers — a bald violation of network neutrality, or, depending on your point of view, a reasonable business plan by a private enterprise. Some alarms were raised about Comcast’s bona fides when it turned out they had paid people who had no interest in the hearings to fill the classroom. This is a huge issue — McCain and Obama both mention neutrality specifically in their technology policies. (Obama is for it, McCain opposed.)

A week after the Cambridge FCC hearings, a peculiar opinion piece appeared in the Harvard Crimson. It was written by Mel King, a long-time Boston community activist and sometime mayoral candidate. The piece called the FCC hearings a “dog and pony show” and adopted a strong anti-net-neutrality posture.

I didn’t know King cared so deeply.

Turns out he does have a history of caring about the issue. He had previously come out IN FAVOR of net neutrality, which would be the politically natural position for him, given his previous history of social activism. But CNET’s Declan McCullagh figured out that he now works for the “Law Media Group,” which represents corporate interests on media issues. As LMG’s web site explains, “LMG uses a ‘political campaign model’ that integrates expertise in the subject matter, message development, aggressive, research-driven paid and earned media, on-the-ground coalition building, preparation of analytical and other policy papers, and a host of next-generation services such as viral and online campaigns.¬†¬†Our goal is to dominate the media environment on behalf of the client.”

“When asked about the details of the op-ed,” McCullagh writes, “King replied: ‘You can talk to Kevin Parker, he’s at the LawMedia Institute.’ Parker is¬†listed on the Naymz networking site as a ‘senior advisor’ to LMG.”

King signs his Crimson piece by noting only that he used to teach at MIT. And oh yes — whoever ghostwrote King’s piece seems to have done the same for Jesse Jackson, as several of the sentences in King’s piece are virtually identical to sentences appearing elsewhere over Jackson’s signature.

Comcast and its brethren must be worried, if they are prepared to stoop to this level to get public voices behind their leave-us-alone campaign. The question is, have Americans gotten so cynical about the way arguments get made that even the Harvard Crimson will shrug its shoulders about this level of misrepresentation?

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 17th, 2008 at 7:26 pm and is filed under Censorship and free speech. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.