"[...] while the consumer press here sees a simple moral issue before it: Neutrality – whatever that is – is good, while Neutrality opponents are evil."
I think the consumer press is, quite rightly, aware of the need to simplify any complex technical issue down to a level where the general public will grasp the key points, and I think "neutrality good, non-neutrality bad" is a good enough approximation in that regard.
Joe Public doesn't have the faintest clue how the internet works, but he can grasp that if he's paying for his high speed internet connection, and yet he can't get a decent connection to YouTube or NetFlix, something funky is going on. He can understand the dangers of the lack of tranparency in that landscape; "How good a connection am I actually paying for, huh? How come someone else paying for the same speed of connection doesn't have these problems?" Joe doesn't want to live in this world, and if "Net Neutrality" is the thing that's going to prevent that from happening, he'll be all for it.
Now if there are good reasons why this net neutrality concept shouldn't be absolute, and exceptions should be made, it's for more technically nuanced people to advocate those exceptions in the proper context, and explain them to Joe. But that has to happen after the basic principle of net neutrality is well established, and if the consumer press is generally promoting it, then they're doing the right thing.