Read the article below and Discuss the introduction and conclusion strategies she uses in this article.

Should a speedy Internet be available to everyone equally or are some users, in Orwell's terms, "more equal than others"? Should there be "haves" and "have-nots" on the Internet, with the winners being large corporate or commercial users, as opposed to small businesses or regular people?That's the essence of the debate behind the high-stakes subject of "net neutrality," which the Federal Communications Commission voted on last week.

Arecent Times articleabout that vote has brought many protests from readers, and from outside commenters, who say the new development was presented in a misleading way, one far too accepting of the perspective of the F.C.C. and its chairman, Tom Wheeler, who has spoken in support of the proposal.

"I've long become accustomed to news articles as well as editorials in the Times asserting that black is white or white is black, but for you to insist that the actions of the FCC last week will protect and enhance internet neutrality is way over the top," wrote one reader, William Edwards.

And another, Robert Ofsevit, wrote a detailed critique, comparing the headline in The Times, "F.C.C. Vote Paves the Way for New Open Internet Rules" unfavorably with a more direct headline on a Reuters story that ranon Huffington Post: "F.C.C. Votes for Plan to Kill Net Neutrality." He wrote:

I would add that the Times subsequently changed the headline and parts of the article online, without even noting why. The changed story does no better, describing a false controversy that does not exist, namely, defining web neutrality. Any arrangement that has two tiers, and charges for various rates for faster service, kills net neutrality. Most agree on this point except the large corporations who would stand to benefit, and their representatives.

The writer denigrates and marginalizes "some opponents" of Chairman Wheeler's plan, and "net neutrality purists" who view the plan as killing net neutrality. In fact, these are not fringe views held only by "purists." The New York Times' own editorials condemn the Chairman's plan. Are they "net neutrality purists"? President Obama himself, in 2007 stated emphatically that he "... would take a back seat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality, because when providers start to privilege some applications or websites over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out, and we all lose."

I asked Suzanne Spector, the technology editor, to respond to these complaints.

On the matter of the different versions of the article, she said that the later version was not an effort to fix a flawed story, but rather an example of something The Times does on a daily basis: "We write the news in real time and then we do a more analytical take" for print. (I've written a number of times about changes to evolving stories. To summarize my view: When mistakes are corrected, that must be clearly noted; when the story becomes very different, it should get a new URL; but I don't believe in explanatory editor's notes for every evolving story.)

In general terms, she said, "net neutrality is a complex, dense subject, and our challenge is to explain it clearly every time we write about it." One of the issues, she said, is how to define net neutrality does it involve only the "last mile" that information travels (between service provider and consumer), or does it refer to the entire highway from beginning to end? On this polarizing subject, Ms. Spector said, there is room for disagreement on that score.

As a whole, she contended, The Times has done a good job ofexplaining these issues clearlyin its coverage. But, she said, "in this story, we could have been clearer." And she agreed that the use of the term "purists" was not a good choice.

"If we had a do-over, we probably wouldn't use that term," she said.

My take: I'm with the critics on this one. While I'm no expert, I don't think the issues here really are all that muddy. Maybe this makes me a purist, but as I see it, this F.C.C. vote was a clear strike against the commonly understood idea of net neutrality, and The Times should have written and presented it that way.

Correction: May 22, 2014

An earlier version of this post referred to a Reuters headline that said "F.C.C. Votes for Plan to Kill Net Neutrality." That headline, though it appeared over a Reuters story, ran on Huffington Post.