Last night The New York Times reported the above story – I didn’t have time to read it so I had not posted it. A migraine set me off to a slow day today and with 5 hours of meetings I could only follow along on Twitter. So here is the story, last night The New York Times said:

Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege.

Which is so very clearly against Google’s Net Neutrality stance, and their mission statement of ‘Doing no Evil”, which by Google’s own admission such a thing would be, and should be viewed as ‘evil’. Google’s public policy Twitter account then tweeted:

@NYTimes is wrong. We’ve not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet.

At which point it would seem the whole thing should be over, but Google was apparently offended, as was Verizon because TechCrunch got a couple of quotes from them both denying the story.

Everyone seems to be stuck on the fact that Google is denying, and should they be trusted and yadda yadda yadda, but who gives a crap about that. The bigger question here is where the hell did The New York Times get this information, why was it not vetted, and where does this leave the Times’ integrity?