Slashdot Mirror


CNET Parent CBS Blocks Review and Award To Dish Over Legal Dispute

Coldeagle writes "It looks as if CNET's parent company, CBS, has laid down the law: 'Just one day after CNet named the Dish "Hopper," a new TV recording system that's drawing rave reviews in the tech press, to an awards shortlist, the site's parent company stepped in and nixed the accolade. Because of a legal battle between CBS and Dish over the Hopper's ad-skipping technology, CBS laid down a ban: CNet won't be allowed to even review Dish products, much less give them awards.' Got to love modern day freedom of the press!"

138 comments

  1. All the News ... by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Funny

    All the News we think is fit to print and in our best interests.

    1. Re:All the News ... by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

      CBS owned CNET

    2. Re:All the News ... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      All the News we think is fit to print and in our best interests.

      If it costs us revenue, you can't have it.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    3. Re:All the News ... by icebike · · Score: 5, Funny

      CBS owned CNET

      But apparently CBS never learned to spell Streisand.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:All the News ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. You beat me to it. "Make noise about not wanting anyone to find out about..." and *BANG* everyone is suddenly curious, and because of the 'net, everyone finds out and it gains wildly more press than their worst nightmare. And thanks again Barbara, for lending us the name.

    5. Re:All the News ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is all about the corporate dollar revenue. Nothing matter except the revenue stream or lack their of. Each company need to protect their revenue how eve they feel fit no matter if it is morally wrong.

      The best answer is to vote with your personal dollars and not support these companies. It is the main reason what I have not bought a Sony product for the last 3 years and will never purchase a Sony product.

  2. 1st amendment is for the government by alen · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's to protect your rights from the government

    CBS is a private business and has no obligation to review a product of another business

    1. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Tridus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nobody mentioned the amendment. Freedom of the press is a concept that existed long before that, and it's a pretty good one. In the case of a review site, what they're really selling is their reputation.

      If your reputation is as a shill site that won't review something because some corporate types are fighting with some other corporate types, that's not good for your brand.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    2. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true Soviet!

    3. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Freedom of the press is granted to those who OWN THE PRESS. No news here... please move along.

    4. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's to protect your rights from the government

      CBS is a private business and has no obligation to review a product of another business

      "The basic rules which determine who gets to use the public airwaves and how they get to use them are set by our representatives in Congress. In both the 1934 Communications Act and the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress determined that broadcasters should get a free license to public airwaves to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity."

      CBS may be a private business, but they got to where they are thanks to a government-granted position. First amendment concerns actually do apply in some limited cases. It's not unreasonable to invoke the 1st amendment in connection therewith (though this case doesn't strike me as especially relevant; seems more like an abuse of a quadropoly).

    5. Re:1st amendment is for the government by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative

      The history of freedom of the press goes back nearly 500 years. The term has always referred to a legal concept that restricts the ability of GOVERNMENTS to interfere with publications.

      Freedom of the press is not and never has been a concept that applies to private concerns. If it did it would be a big issue because it would interfere with property rights.

      Yes perhaps CBS is hurting their reputation by not carrying these advertisements. But this has NOTHING to do with freedom of the press.

    6. Re:1st amendment is for the government by ZipK · · Score: 2

      Even a glimmer of responsibility for fair and balanced use of public airwaves (as in a fairness doctrine) has long since been extinguished. And c|net, being a web-based outlet, isn't using public airwaves.

    7. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Freedom of the press means that only CBS gets to decide what CBS says.

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    8. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a blind interpretation that serves only to conceal the deeply troubling precedent here.

      Journalism has ethics of its own, and this compromises them.

      And you? You harp on some pedantry about the government.

    9. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are under no obligation to fund your detractors. This has been upheld many times:

      * Malls, AKA private property, do not have to let protesters walk around inside protesting businesses.
      * The First Amendment covers the right to say things...and not to say things.
      * Parades are, in fact, expressive events w.r.t. the First Amendment, so religious Irish don't have to let gays march in their parade.

      Even things like cigarette labeling fall under truth in advertising. When it gets too obnoxious or large, it gets slapped down again.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    10. Re:1st amendment is for the government by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      Exactly. People still have freedom of the press, the problem is that they're pissing off the person who owns their press.

      That's what you get when you sell out to a large media company.

    11. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they do have an obligation when they're claiming to be an impartial review journal.

      But I suppose we can cut them some slack. It's not like this has ever happened with a CBS Interactive property before -- oh, wait.

    12. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      Let me guess, you believe that only governments can censor by definition?

    13. Re:1st amendment is for the government by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You had me right up to that part about Journalism having ethics....

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    14. Re:1st amendment is for the government by TrekkieGod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's to protect your rights from the government

      CBS is a private business and has no obligation to review a product of another business

      When the poster talked about "freedom of the press", I'm pretty sure he meant to talk about editorial independence. A journalistic entity isn't credible without editorial independence from the owners of the publication, because without it you can't be sure if anything you read can from that publication is the truth, or is just what is convenient to the owners. Generally publications want the reputation of being unbiased, which is also why they tend to disclose any possible source of biases (such as when slashdot covers a story related to a company that is owned by the same parent company that owns slashdot, and the editors mention that in the summary).

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    15. Re:1st amendment is for the government by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      In Russia, you amazed by ads for ad-skipping technology.
      In Soviet America, smart net television ensure ad-skipping technology review never seen by you.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    16. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Genda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes and when the news and all the media being watched by the mouth breathing public are owned by a shocking few corporations and those corporations act monolithicly to steer society in the direction they choose, to inform or misinform as they choose, to manipulate and promote public opinion in the name of what's good for the plutocracy, we have a wee problem.

      Or, perhaps this is the way its always been and a free press is an aberration or illusion. Personally I think its high time we pried the those crypt keeper fingers off of the controls steering society into ever deeper water and we just said screw the banks and screw the corporations. Its time for real free enterprise.

    17. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let CBS use its own private airwaves if it wants to cloak itself in the privilege of private property, but while they're using public airwaves the public most definitely gets to have a say in how those airwaves are used.

    18. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes perhaps CBS is hurting their reputation by not carrying these advertisements. But this has NOTHING to do with freedom of the press.

      The press is free or it isn't free, regardless of the source of the censorship. You can argue all you want about whether a private business who is using public airwaves has the right to claim a private property right, but you cannot argue that it's not an issue of freedom.

    19. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who is CBS?

    20. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go slit your fucking wrists communist, nigger loving fucktard.

      - alen (225700)

    21. Re:1st amendment is for the government by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      That sound you hear? It's their reputation screaming in agony. It's the sound of their doom. Lets let them die the death they so richly deserve. I'm blocking CNET from entering any system I control. How about you?

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    22. Re:1st amendment is for the government by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So we have no rights. There is no right I have that's intrinsic to me, they are all artifacts of my property or interactions with the government. The sooner the loonitarians just have "you have no rights unless you buy them" as their official catch phrase, the sooner we'll pass through the destructive loonitarian phase and can actually get to work fixing problems.

      They object to it being pointed out, but they don't disagree with the conclusion itself. Go on, prove me wrong. Tell me how my "rights" restrict those around me (companies and private individuals) when dealing with me, and not just the government.

    23. Re:1st amendment is for the government by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The 1st amendment is the implementation of freedom of the press that is specific to the government.

      The more general category of Freedom of the Press applies everywhere. It is always a good thing and those who oppose it are universally on the wrong side of decency.

    24. Re:1st amendment is for the government by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Freedom of the press is when the media reports something bad about ANY powerful interest be it government, corporate, or personal.

      Altering the perceived scope of a definition is a popular tactic amongst those who wish to do bad things. Such as narrowing your perception of the definition of Freedom of the Press or expanding your perceived definition of theft or piracy.

    25. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom of the press is when its vs. a goverment. A corporation has no such obligation to allow freedom of the press.

      A major loophole for sure.

    26. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Desler · · Score: 1

      What "public airwaves" does C|NET use exactly?

    27. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Dutchmaan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Journalism does have ethics, just because *journalists* don't follow them all the time doesn't mean they don't exist.

    28. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

      Freedom of the press is when the media reports something bad about the government. It's not about reviewing products

      Come again??

      The term "Freedom Of The Press" does not come with teeny tiny subtexts.

      Freedom of the Press is exactly what it is, the freedom of the media to report what they want to report, and it is not limited to government, or to corporation, or to social movement, or any other subject that you may (or may not) think of.

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    29. Re:1st amendment is for the government by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      Freedom of the press is about being free to publish. If the parent company allows people to publish, freedom is increased. If it does not, freedom is reduced.

      Generally publishers are interested in increasing freedom. This is a moral principle. Not a legal one. It's still freedom of the press.

    30. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let me guess, you believe that only governments can censor by definition?

      Yes. When an organization decides it does not want to run a story, that's their choice. They are not being censored. Now, there is an argument which can be made that the person trying to submit the story is being censored, but considering they could go to another organization or just print it on their own, no it's not censorship.
      Freedom of the Press means the government does not get to decide what can and cannot be printed.

    31. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since CBS owns CNET, the media – CBS/CNET in this case – exercised its freedom to report – or not report in this case – what they wanted.

      So tell me, exactly how is Freedom of the Press being abridged? You think CNET's freedom is being restricted somehow? By someone other than themselves? Don't tell us it's being restricted by CBS – CBS and CNET are one and the same.

    32. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      It is not a violation of freedom of the press for a company to decline to report something that said company perceives as being against its interests. It is not a violation of freedom of the press for CBS to decline to cover another company with whom they are currently having a legal dispute (which is what happened here). You can make a case that it would be a violation of freedom of the press if CBS successfully pressured ABC to not review and/or give awards to Dish, but you cannot make a case that it is a violation of freedom of the press for CBS to decide that they will not review and give awards to Dish.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    33. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually it is, since the people directly involved in making an impartial and unbiased selection are being compromised by the corporate heads.

      That you will not admit how it violates freedom of the press is not surprising, it's like the old saw about Freedom used to justify restrictive covenants and anti-union clauses in contracts.

    34. Re:1st amendment is for the government by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      This has nothing to do with freedom of the press. CBS has the right to review or not review any products they like, and CNET is nothing more than a division of CBS. Journalistic integrity is another matter...

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    35. Re:1st amendment is for the government by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      CBS won't be prosecuted. They become a Fox News of selective coverage. Their sense of fairness and ethics is dashed against the rocks of their sense of their business model, which has been perceived as corrupt, and perhaps is.

      Journalists that I know that work for CBS and CNet (and other subsidiaries) are completely aghast. It's a WTF moment for them.

      Freedom of the press allows CBS to have enormous lattitude, just like it does to the blather and BS of Fox News. CBS's management has allowed themselves to be knocked down any number of pegs as a direct result. It was a stupid move, and they'll be thought of in ways that are clearly assessed by this action.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    36. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      CBS won't be prosecuted. They become a Fox News of selective coverage.

      What would/should they be prosecuted for here? I cannot imagine any reason why they should be prosecuted for this. Any attempt to prosecute them for this would be a violation of freedom of the press.
      As to them "becoming a Fox News of selective coverage" they were doing selective coverage of the news before there was a Fox News. Just go back and look at the way they reported on the Vietnam War.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    37. Re:1st amendment is for the government by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      you left out THEY key issue: government.

      freedom does not need gov to be involved.

      freedom OF THE PRESS does need the gov to be part of it.

      if its private-to-private, FOTP is not releavnt.

      (semantics, but its important to know)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    38. Re:1st amendment is for the government by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Pedantic? Maybe.
      But still correct.
      Technically.
      The best kind.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    39. Re:1st amendment is for the government by dywolf · · Score: 1

      And you prove you have absolutely no clue beyond a blind disdain for the libertarian movement with zero knowledge of what that actually pertains to.
      Like a blind person saying he hates green and likes blue.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    40. Re:1st amendment is for the government by dywolf · · Score: 1

      No one is narrowing anything.

      It states in its simplicity: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      Congress. Shall make no law. Abridging the freedom...of the press.

      Doesn't say jack about private companies that own said "press".
      Don't like it? Then work to get it changed.
      I know I don't, and I've supported efforts to expand it too.
      But until then, it only applies to the gov.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    41. Re:1st amendment is for the government by sjames · · Score: 1

      You have just narrowed the broad concept of 'Freedom of the Press" down to the much more specific "First Amendment". We are NOT talking about the First Amendment here, we are talking about the broader concept.

    42. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to think that corporations, being a private being, have no obligations whatsoever in this matter, and that censorship can only come from government.
      Well, here's Merriam-Webster's definition on censor:

      2 censor transitive verb
      censored censoring
      Definition of CENSOR

      : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

      Examples of CENSOR

      The station censored her speech before broadcasting it.
      His report was heavily censored.

      In that respect, CNET is being muscled into CENSORING its journalists by its parent company CBS. That's crystal clear to me.

    43. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever read Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent"?

    44. Re:1st amendment is for the government by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      I report how it was described to my by libertarians. Either there is no "libertarian" movement in the US, but a bunch of anarchists who show up in the same place at the same time by coincidence, or you don't know what the libertarians say they believe.

      My problem is that I like libertarianism, and consider myself one, but I hate anyone who considers themselves to be a libertarian, because they are all Republicans.

      And I note, that you, as a Republican loonitarian didn't offer one reason why my characterization was wrong. That makes me think that I was right on, especially the part about how loonitarians hate it being pointed out.

    45. Re:1st amendment is for the government by nbauman · · Score: 1

      The issue is not funding your detractors, but publishing news about your competitor. It's self-censorship, an independent issue from government control.

      If CBS is censoring CNET, I know that CNET isn't reliable -- and neither is CBS.

      If I'm a reader, I want a magazine to give me the truth as accurately and completely as they can, not self-censor for the publisher's business reasons. If they won't do that, fuck them. I have plenty of other news sources.

      Among journalists, this has been a well-known issue for at least the last hundred years.

      The Wall Street Journal, for example, got its reputation in the 1950s when it was going to print a story about to GM's unannounced new lineup of cars. GM threatened to pull out all its advertising if the WSJ printed the story. They told GM to get lost and printed the story. This was an astounding move, because most (not all) newspapers used to cave in to their advertisers. The WSJ got a reputation for accuracy and independence that it kept until Murdoch bought them up.

      Newspaper reporters like A.J. Liebling used to complain that their stories about advertisers would get killed. Stories about anything that offended the publisher's personal prejudices, like unions or left-wing politics, would also get killed, in most (not all) newspapers.

      A reporter named George Seldes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Seldes got some money to put out a newsletter called In Fact. Most of his stories came from other reporters who sent him the stuff they couldn't print in their own newspapers, like news about strikes, the FBI, dangerous products (the dangers of tobacco were almost never discussed in major newspapers), FDA seizures, segregation, lynchings and politics on the left. His newsletter was successful for many years, and finally the FBI started intimidating his subscribers, his circulation dropped, and he had to shut it down.

      In Fact became the model for a lot of other newsletters, including I.F. Stone's Weekly. He had a big impact on American journalism.

    46. Re:1st amendment is for the government by nbauman · · Score: 1

      You're getting your semantics all wrong.

      Most journalists will tell you that freedom of the press means to them the freedom to print whatever they know to be the truth. If the government censors them, or their publisher censors them, they don't have freedom of the press.

      One of the best examples was tobacco. The tobacco industry was one of the biggest advertisers in newspapers and magazines. They were also the major cause of preventable death in the U.S.. Newspapers and magazines printed articles about every kind of cancer -- except lung cancer. Reporters knew that cigarettes were killing people, they knew the tobacco companies were lying when they denied it, they knew that their readers didn't realize how dangerous cigarettes were, and yet they couldn't print it. (There were a handful of exceptions, most of which didn't take ads, such as the Readers Digest.)

      They didn't have the freedom of the press to print the important truth about cigarettes.

    47. Re:1st amendment is for the government by nbauman · · Score: 1

      It's the uneasy ghost of Walter Cronkite wandering the land.

    48. Re:1st amendment is for the government by drkstr1 · · Score: 1

      You see, the problem with that is the government is not the one in charge. They get their marching orders from the interest groups with the loudest voice, and big media conglomerates has made it so that it requires a whole hell of a lot of money to have any voice at all. Compounded onto that a trend where fewer and fewer people are owning a larger chunk of the available wealth, and we are on the fast tract willful enslavement. There is a reason why all major media is owned by 5 conglomerates. It is very profitable to control public opinion. No, CBS and their ilk are EXACTLY the ones we should be worried about.

      --
      Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
    49. Re:1st amendment is for the government by drkstr1 · · Score: 1

      Do not be fooled by neo-cons in libertarian clothing. Rights shouldn't be purchasable at all, and the fact that they are is exactly the problem we are trying to solve. The ideal is that everyone will be better off if they are empowered with the tools to better their situation, regardless of their current socio-economic status. To do this, we must be able to make informed decisions in a market place with many participants. Concentration of wealth, and thus the ability to purchase rights) is a side effect of government enforcement, mostly related to Intellectual Property IMHO. Our goal is actually very similar to that of socialism, a high standard of living for everyone, without a huge gap between the bottom and top percentiles. The difference is that the Libertarian method to achieve such ends recognizes human nature.

      --
      Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
    50. Re:1st amendment is for the government by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, by extension, the government could legally apply pressure to, extort, pressure, or simply pay the press to report the way they want. While there are too many channels to control the entirety of the press this way, the parts of the press that aren't vulnerable to this only reach a small margin of the people. Of course, the lunatic fringe segment of the press would probably reach a larger segment of the population, which would make it easy for people to lump the honest press in with the loonies.

    51. Re:1st amendment is for the government by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Well, the people who actually published the review are certainly being silenced. They've also been put in a position where, if journalistic integrity were actually important to people these days and if the people doing the review were serious journalists, they would have no choice but to either resign or lose all respect as journalists. Instead, it seems that this is just going to pass with a shrug. This is the true face of corruption. It creeps in until no-one can be bothered to care or act because it would be only so much spitting against the wind.

      All that said, it doesn't seem to be illegal. It's sort of photographic negative of activity that could constitute false advertising. It does put them in a potentially liable position if they ever give the product of a competitor a bad review without a big, obvious disclaimer. It's also utterly disgusting, but it's not illegal.

    52. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody mentioned the amendment.

      Nobody except a CEA representative quoted in the article.

    53. Re:1st amendment is for the government by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Government is irrelevant outside of the first amendment. The first amendment does not define what freedom of speech is any more than the fifth defines what the presumption of innocence is.

      Why does it make any difference who is limiting your freedom? Censorship is people with the power to prevent publishing using that power - whether it's a government or a business owner. Freedom of the press is simply about the ability to publish

      Are the journalist "free" to publish? CNET journalists can't review dish products without being punished.

      This is a moral principle. One that we expect all publishers to support.

    54. Re:1st amendment is for the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People often can't discern between freedom of the press and editorial control of content, because they are the same idea. CBS has the editorial right to publish or not publish whatever they want, it's their first amendment right to do so. However, a good ethical journalistic entity would publish something anyway (if it is true and newsworthy), and make it clear that they are not impartial in the matter, even if they seem to be endorsing something they do not benefit from.

      Also, it's hard to say any company that almost exclusively reviews products could be called journalism.

      Take Gloria Steinem's experience as the editor of "Ms." in account before you respond:
      http://www.udel.edu/comm245/readings/advertising.pdf

    55. Re:1st amendment is for the government by volmtech · · Score: 1

      And of course you and your friends get to determine what is "fair and balanced".

  3. Thanks CBS! by Intropy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm considering canceling my Comcast subscription because their new dta scheme means no more local HD on the basic plan. I hadn't even heard of hopper, but now I think I've found my replacement. Barbra Streisand would be so proud.

    1. Re:Thanks CBS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering? Just post when you cancel. Even though it's random Internet guy it says more than saying that you're kind of thinking about it.

    2. Re:Thanks CBS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait until January 17th. That's when the product shown at CES, the Hopper with Sling, launches.

    3. Re:Thanks CBS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I canceled Comcast three months ago and went to DirectTV. I still have Comcast internet.

      DirectTV and Dish have SO MANY MORE OPTIONS and more advanced equipment. I'm sure Comcast has different equipment with different capabilities in different areas but my area sucked and for what options I had, it was expensive. A plain old ass HD DVR (Cisco RNG200 HD DVR) with no ability to serve to other TVs in the house and a small amount of recording space was $16/month. They also wanted $10 per additional standalone HD box. No options for anything better. Plus, many recorded shows and On Demand shows disabled the FF button completely. There was NO WAY to FF a show manually or automatically.

      I pay about $50 less a month for DirectTV with 2 HD DVRs (which are seen as one big DVR throughout the house) , + 2 HD receivers (which can wath from both DRVs) + an SD receiver and Comcast internet combined then I paid for Comcast TV and internet with 1 HD DVR and 4 SD boxes. Even after the first year when some of the DirectTV discounts go away, it will still be $10 cheaper and I have far more options and quality.

      As a side note, I am paying the same for Comcast internet as a standalone product as I was when I had Comcast TV service. I thought they would raise the price but they haven't yet.

    4. Re:Thanks CBS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also when Archer returns, so, there's that.

  4. SageTV+ComSkip = no ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I haven't seen any ads for 3 years (those outside of my house do not count)

  5. Misidentification. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who says Cnet are journalists?

    1. Re:Misidentification. by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      Well, if their product reviews are not objective, they can't really be trusted. What use are they?

    2. Re:Misidentification. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Well, if their product reviews are not objective, they can't really be trusted. What use are they?

      Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, WSJ OpEd page ...
      [ Okay, mainly the very first one, but I'm *trying* to be fair and balanced - I mean "objective". :-) ]

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  6. CBS no longer cares by storkus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are more anecdotes, suspicions, etc about this same thing going on each and every day ever since there has been a press, but it's extremely rare for this kind of industry self-censorship to be this blatent and in-your-face.

    This could just be a moronic decision by idiots at CBS without thinking of the consequences...or maybe, just maybe, THEY NO LONGER *CARE* ABOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES...

    Just a hunch...

    1. Re:CBS no longer cares by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

      I just dropped cable for streaming, and I added a bunch of free channels. CNET was one of them. I'm going to delete it as soon as I post this. I doubt I will ever put it back. I suggest you do the same.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    2. Re:CBS no longer cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      CBS's main demographic is old people too lazy to change the channel, mixed with a few young people who want to get out their drool cups and turn off their brains for a while. They have few viewers who even know what a CNET is, and even fewer who would care.

    3. Re:CBS no longer cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this kind of industry self-censorship

      Self-Censorship is loaded term. Censorship is when an outside entity forces you to alter your material to suit their demands, when you're making the decision yourself it's Choice.

      And I find it rather hypocritical that a site like slashdot would bitch about censorship at all, since the moderation system used on here could be viewed as "crowd-sourced censorship".

    4. Re:CBS no longer cares by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I don't think they ever did. There was the incident with Dan Rather in 2004, but worse was six decades ago when Walter Cronkite lied on air during coverage of the 1952 Presidential election.

      In summer 1952, a Remington Rand executive approached CBS News chief Sig Mickelson and said the Univac might be able to plot early election-night returns against past voting patterns and spit out a predicted winner. Mickelson and anchor Walter Cronkite thought the claim was a load of baloney but figured it would at least be entertaining to try it on the air.

      Eckert and Mauchly sought help from a University of Pennsylvania statistician, Max Woodbury. He and Mauchly wrote one of the first algorithms for computing, working at Mauchly's house because Mauchly had been blacklisted as pro-communist. "John wasn't allowed into the company anymore," says Mauchly's widow, Kay Mauchly Antonelli.

      On election night, the 16,000-pound Univac remained at its home in Philadelphia. In the TV studio, CBS set up a fake computer â" a panel embedded with blinking Christmas lights and a teletype machine. Cronkite sat next to it. Correspondent Charles Collingwood and a camera crew set up in front of the real Univac.

      As polls began to close, clerks typed the data into the Univac using three Unityper machines, which punched holes in a paper tape that would be fed into the computer.

      By 8:30 p.m. ET â" long before news organizations of the era knew national election outcomes â" Univac spit out a startling prediction. It said Eisenhower would get 438 electoral votes to Stevenson's 93 â" a landslide victory. Because every poll had said the race would be tight, CBS didn't believe the computer and refused to air the prediction.

      "Mauchly was at home getting telephone calls all the time about what was happening," Antonelli says. "All he could say was, 'Sit tight, we've done the best we could.' We sat there all night in front of the TV set with bated breath."

      "It was essentially a live demo, on national TV," says Jim Senior, historian at Unisys, the computer giant that traces its roots to Remington Rand and Univac. "That took a lot of daring."

      Under pressure, Woodbury rejiggered the algorithms. Univac then gave Eisenhower 8-to-7 odds over Stevenson. At 9:15 p.m., Cronkite reported that on the air. But Woodbury kept working and found he'd made a mistake. He ran the numbers again and got the original results â" an Eisenhower landslide.

      Late that night, as actual results came in, CBS realized Univac had been right. Embarrassed, Collingwood came back on the air and confessed to millions of viewers that Univac had predicted the results hours earlier.

      Journalistic integrity? CBS has no clue such a thing ever existed, and it seems they were always that way. I remember as a teenager that CBS was the Fox of the 1960s. Except unlike Fox, their bias and propaganda extended to its entertainment as well as "news". Remember "Matlock"?

    5. Re:CBS no longer cares by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      And I find it rather hypocritical that a site like slashdot would bitch about censorship at all, since the moderation system used on here could be viewed as "crowd-sourced censorship".

      Maybe, if one doesn't know how to change the viewing threshold.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  7. Got to love modern day freedom of the press! by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

    Got to love modern day freedom of the press!

    If you think this is some sort of new phenomenon, you're dreaming. This is the way it's always been, just a lot less subtle than it might have been a few decades ago.

    1. Re:Got to love modern day freedom of the press! by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Yes. CBS gets to decide what they publish. You get to decide what you publish. The government has no say in the matter. That's freedom of the press.

      Or as the old saying goes, "freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses".

    2. Re:Got to love modern day freedom of the press! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when the people running CES gave the task of deciding the "best products of the show" to CNet, I am sure they did not see any fine print that said: "We might exclude some products if CBS say so". If they get the gig next year too, will anyone actually take the awards seriously? Or will they assume a bias?

  8. Freedom of the press? Uh, no. by ZipK · · Score: 1

    Got to love modern day freedom of the press!

    Cnet is free from government abridgment in this affair; their corporate overlords are not subject to the first amendment's constitutional proscription.

    1. Re:Freedom of the press? Uh, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why call it CNET callit CBSNET then and see how many people take it seriously
      NONE
      and now no one will take it seriously they might as well shut that whole site down

  9. Makes sense by msobkow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If they're in court over the device, they sure don't want any of their subsidiaries reviewing or commenting on the devices. That would provide the opposition with ammunition in court, and could even lead to a dismissal of the case because they didn't keep their opinions and comments in the court system instead of in public.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dish probably would've got a dismissal or ruling in their favor if a cbs-owned tech news site praised the hopper's features and gave it an award because of them.

      dish: "the plaintiff just published a report praising the equipment and features in question. they even gave it a prestigious award! we hereby ask the court for ruling in our favor or dismissal"
      judge: "counselor, a response to that?"
      cbs: "uhh. um...."
      judge: "that's it? case dismissed, with prejudice! pay your own legal bills. court adjourned".

    2. Re:Makes sense by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      CBS: "The editorials issued by subsidiaries do not reflect the official corporate stance of CBS. Do you really have to ask?"

  10. is cnet seen publically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AHHH then shut the fuck up about private this and that
    its a public website trying to review for the public with freedom to tell you decent stuff
    when you get as the one poster says interference its ,messing with the press freedom

    this is why all the corporate big wigs bought up the news papers and media so they can control what you see not report via any freedom that exists.

    when CNET publishes ONLY privatly then i dont care what CBS does.
    FUCK CBS and now FUCK CNET

    1. Re:is cnet seen publically by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This decision by CBS prompts me to distrust CBS and to choose not to use CBS or its subsidiaries to get my news. I do not Support the right of CBS to decide what CBS will and will not say because I like and trust CBS, I support the right of CBS to decide what CBS will and will not say because I like having the right to decide what I will and will not say.

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    2. Re:is cnet seen publically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is until this story, I had no idea CNET was own by CBS. I can't imagine I'm alone in that.

    3. Re:is cnet seen publically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Indeed, these things change quickly and frequently. It's like trying to figure out if a seemingly indie label is RIAA affiliated.

      Media consolidation is never a good thing.

    4. Re:is cnet seen publically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right at the bottom of the CNET home page is © CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved. I guess you are a dimwit.

    5. Re:is cnet seen publically by drkstr1 · · Score: 1

      Both of which are owned by Viacom. http://www.corporations.org/media/

      --
      Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
  11. Sell off News.com domain by Media_Scumbag · · Score: 1

    C|net should give CBS a handful of baubles and trinkets and GTFO. Do they really need CBS, or is it the other way around?

    If CBS doesn't care about journalistic integrity any longer, it should simply change it's initials to mean: Copyright Based Sustenance

  12. Lawsuit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think CBS has opened themselves up to a nice lawsuit. If one of the reasons you were there for the conference was to garner the award and use it in advertisements, who is eligible is extremely important. They've cost Dish network some money and they entitled to some compensation. If I ran the trade show, CBS has diminished the value of the entire convention and the owners should seriously consider suing.

  13. RE: "Got to love modern day freedom of the press." by JonniLuv · · Score: 1

    It's not as though government is infringing on CNet's ability to publish such reviews or award accolades. The restriction is stemming from corporate politics, and if the parent company chooses a specific course of action such as this, it has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of the press. That said, we do need more independent, non-corporate journalism and information sources. What's left of the free market is responding to fill this gap. Only by breaking down the intimate relationships between government and corporations, can we have a more free market, and issues such as this will diminish.

  14. Got to love modern day freedom of the press! by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes. CBS gets to decide what they publish. You get to decide what you publish. The government has no say in the matter. That's freedom of the press.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  15. It's not "modern" freedom of the press by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    Freedom of the press, at least in the USA, is freedom from government censure (as in in the first amendment of the US Constitution).
    There has always been a long-standing "tradition" of owners of media (like newspapers) to advance the agenda of the owner and to suppress the opposition.

    1. Re:It's not "modern" freedom of the press by Joe+U · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think they were referring to editorial freedom, but like most editors on Slashdot they need to take a journalism class.

  16. Journalistic Integrity no... Responsibilities yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fine CNet won't discuss on it's site particular products that happen to have litigation with it's parent company CBS. Fine. You review what you want and have no obligation to take one product over another. I can respect that.

    But what I don't respect is that a 'Best Of CES' which was currently being run by CNet, and had been run by others before CNet took it on a few years back, eliminated this product from potentially receiving an award not for anything improper by Dish, but because CNet's parent company CBS told them to eliminate it. It's not journalistic integrity, this is essentially favouritism based on the political whim for an award / contest which didn't originate with CNet but by another party and one which Cnet took responsibility for, one that included everything product that was officially featured at CES. I think it would behoove CES to encourage CNet to pass this 'Best Of' award to someone else in the future because this proves they are certainly incapable of paying the lip service to objectivity which any award/contest at least tries to maintain.

  17. Remember the Slate Firefox catastrophe? by multicoregeneral · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So Microsoft owned Slate for the longest time. A few years. Everything was going swimmingly until Slate named Firefox the browser of the year. Microsoft never told them they couldn't do that, but it didn't take Microsoft long to divest themselves of the media outlet.

    --
    This signature intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:Remember the Slate Firefox catastrophe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is a bad thing?

  18. Nothing to do with free press by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your boss tells you that you can't run a story in his/her newspaper. You can't run it. Whoop.

  19. I can see why they are doing it by jonwil · · Score: 1

    Its not a good thing for a company like CBS to have one part of the business going to court to claim that a key feature of another companies product is killing your main revenue stream and then have another part of the business praising how good the product (and possibly the feature in question) is.

  20. Tell CBS that's unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do we do that?

  21. Well then... by Blinkin1200 · · Score: 1

    When we comment in their reviews, we should add the phrase 'this is almost as good as the Hopper", or "this is better than the Hopper."

  22. And on that news.... by acedotcom · · Score: 3

    ....I am 100% done with CNet. There "journalism" has been bad enough over the last five years, but when news cant report the news then its not even worth it. Good bye CNet, you will not be missed.

    --
    they say it is often more relevant then the comment above, all we know is its called the Sig!
    1. Re:And on that news.... by Wilf_Brim · · Score: 1

      I dumped them a while back. Several years ago my media player was full of CNET podcasts. Now, I have nothing to do with them. I'd like to blame it all on CBS, but truthfully they were in decline before the acquisition. This was just the cherry on the steaming pile that is currently CNET.

    2. Re:And on that news.... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2

      I wasn't aware that anyone still went to that cancerous site until today.

    3. Re:And on that news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, it sucks. So where do we go now?

    4. Re:And on that news.... by luther349 · · Score: 2

      that's not just cnet all modern tv news has been utter garbage. its been bought ratings and there point of view of matters then any real news.

    5. Re:And on that news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yeah, they had a short popularity and then they sucked, if i want to install a crappy ie toolbar they would be the first place to go to, but i don't seem to need that so that's why i stopped going there, slashdot is also teetering

    6. Re:And on that news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      57 channels and nothing on . . .

  23. Take it to their forums by PimpDawg · · Score: 0

    If enough people make a big deal about this in their forums, they won't be able to ignore it.

  24. Revoke CBS Press Credentials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is clear that CBS News and all of their so-called "journalists" should have their press credentials revoked. They clearly are not a journalism company.

  25. The Hopper is hilarious by GrandCow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I seem to be the only person out of my social circle that remembers Tivo getting neutered back in the early 2000's because of features that were less impressive than this. IIRC Tivo was sued by multiple companies because of the 30-second-skip button on their remotes. They eventually had to disable it (you could always re-enable it if you knew what to do) because advertisers wanted their commercials watched, at least in fast forward.

    Now we have the hopper just a few years later. It does the same thing the Tivo did, but it's automatic now, and you don't even see the start of the commercial like you did with the Tivo. Only this time it's being marketed by one of the distribution companies, so they'll grease a few advertiser palms and keep going on their merry way. Hooray for our legal system!

    --
    "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
    1. Re:The Hopper is hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't recall correctly. ReplayTV was sued for implementing a feature similar to Dish's Auto-Hop and went bankrupt trying to fight it. Tivo, fearing a similar lawsuit, disabled the 30-second skip feature by default. Dish has shipped remotes with a 30-second skip button for as long as they've had DVRs, and never was sued for it.

      Dish's Auto-hop has to explicitly be enabled; ReplayTV did it automatically. That's the difference that Dish's legal team is assuming they can use to avoid the same fate of ReplayTV. That, and Dish can afford a long legal battle.

    2. Re:The Hopper is hilarious by rhalstead · · Score: 0

      Dish's DVR requires manual intervention, or you record and skip over. Quite different than an "auto skip" Of course, there is a big reason that the major "main stream media" has dropped to the bottom of the viewer heap and a third rate network has risen to the top in all segments of the news. They only report news favorable to them, their philosophy, or their hero...even if they have to manufacture it

  26. The first rule of CBS club.... by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

    The first rule of CBS club....
    .
    .... is don't dis' any part of CBS.
    .
    .... is that the club will hit you in the head if you dare speak the truth about things that CBS doesn't like.
    .
    .... is that we are all brainless morons and there is no longer a wall dividing news and editorial content from management and mangerial control.
    .
    .... is that we are all sheeple.

  27. Not So Bad, Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 'reporters' and 'editors' are not being rendered and delivered to indefinite detention and summery torture which our President masturbates to when he sees the videos at GITMO, now are they ?

  28. Sad by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

    ...

    If your reputation is as a shill site that won't review something because some corporate types are fighting with some other corporate types, that's not good for your brand.

    Scary how many /.ers seem to believe that the trade press is fair, ballanced, reputable, accurate, responsible, caring, honest, trustworthy, etc.

    They make their money from their adverisers. They know not to bite the hand that feeds them. Grow up and move out of your parent's basement. Yellow journalism started with the first paid advertisement.

    Cheers,
    Daver

    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
    Ben
    1. Re:Sad by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Wide overgeneralization. Having worked in the trade press, I know how fair and balanced they are.

      Many of them pander to their advertisers. Many of them don't. Many of them go through a period of independence, then get bought up by a publisher who panders to advertisers again.

      Business Week used to pride itself on its independence from advertisers. They had a cover story in which they trounced Westinghouse. Westinghouse pulled all their ads. It happened a lot.

      I used to read Automotive News. They published bad news about the auto industry that the New York Times wouldn't print, because the auto industry was one of the NYT's biggest advertisers. When people in the auto industry were talking among themselves, they wouldn't put up with any bullshit.

  29. No story, just a little thing called Synergy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly guys, what do you expect? The biggest joke of course is CBS geta synergy on taxes too.

    CBS wants to advertise on CNET, its only fair that they pay the same rate as anyone else right? So CBS transfers some numbers on some column, and hey look at that, CBS is losing money, so why does it owe tax? Money given to yourself is the nest expense.

  30. CBS and siblings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CBS - CIA psyop news you can never count the tyranny on
    CNET - deliverer of malware wrapped spyware software, hand in the cookie jar
    yourcity.cbslocal.com - sub domains of propaganda seed story hell. blackhat SEO spoogy-woogy (most stories go like this, PEOPLE ARE BAD, OFFICIALS ARE ANGELS, BANKSTERS ARE ANGELS, I love TSA, Ban Guns, Outlaw weed, no smoking, no burning, smart meters are good and so are water meters, lets have carbon tax, and global bank, and agenda 21)

  31. Didn't you stop reading Cnet when CBS bought them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did.

  32. press freedom confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, "freedom of the Press" in the U.S. is a God-given right that the press had by virtue of being run by humans with God-given rights. Just like all the other "rights" in the "Bill of Rights" it is not a "right" that is granted to the people by the government; the "Bill of Rights" is only there to re-state what should have been obvious to anybody who read the Constitution ... these rights have always been and always shall be possessed by the people. In other words: The "Bill of Rights" does not grant anything, it simply re-iterates explicitly things the federal government may not intrude upon.

    Second, (and in light of the previous) while we all have "Constitutional rights" (which the government may not violate) there is no provision that we, as free adults, may not surrender rights to other people or businesses as part of some other arrangement. C/net has freedom from government interference in what it prints but in selling shares it allowed share holders to exercise control over it. This meant that in buying shares of C/net, CBS got the legal right to influence control over C/net. There is simply no "First Amendment" violation here ..... though there is certainly a violation of trust between C/net and its readers.

    The thing that's truly funny is that ABC, CBS and NBC all influence things in their various media properties and I'd lay bets that NBC is the absolute worst .... they have actually manipulated news in shocking ways (edited audio tapes in the FL shooting, the blown-up pickup truck, etc.) and yet they are the favorite network of many people who call Fox News names. All of our news outlets are businesses and that even includes NPR. If you only watch/read certain outlets and refuse to watch/read others then you will be manipulated sooner or later and you'll not know it's happening. Our founders presumed free adults would be smart enough to pay attention and they did not give us any "press honesty agency"; they left us free to consume bad information and free to consume the best possible information - even if the government might not want us to have it. Competition is there as a force to "keep them honest" over time (like wikipedia, it'll not always help but the general trend will be good .... better than anything a bunch of bureaucrats could deliver) Don't let them down - pay attention and don't ever become a fanboy for ANY source of information.

  33. another reason by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    I'd block all awards to them just based on their horrible streaming data rate. The quality of their HD is a joke. I've seen less compression in a youtube video.

    1. Re:another reason by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I'd just force cnet to display next to their "Award" word that it's a choice of products approved by their corporate masters award.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  34. Learn history more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Freedom of the press is when the media reports something bad about the government. It's not about reviewing products

    Yes, you're right, because I was standing next to George Washington when he said this. You're wrong. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..." Capish?

  35. the airwaves going over your land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the airwaves going over public land.

    and same again with the wires carrying cable over your land or public land,

    If the cable and airwaves are privately owned by CBS, then they should pay rent for their occupation of public and private land of others.

  36. History repeats by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How do you think the Hearst empire was built?

  37. yo by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    This has nothing to do with "freedom of the press". It's CBS's prerogative to cover what they want to cover. If you don't like what they've chosen not to cover then vote with your feet and don't patronize CBS or its affiliates. Besides, "Streisand Effect".

    1. Re:yo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two parts to this decision, you ignore that this also affected a CES award voting because CNet had been chosen to organize that. So the reach went further than just editorial control, it affected CES as a third-party not involved in the conflict.

      Then again, after Buzz Out Loud was canceled I have had no interest in CNet as such.

  38. Isn't business competition wonderful???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Er, uh, no competition exists anymore. Conglomeration has taken it away from us. But, hey, in its place we get harmonious "all the gossip & on-message that's fit to print". Not to mention telcos, oil, medical insurance (USA) - show me a market that's competitive at all these days.

  39. Freedom of the Press by swschrad · · Score: 1

    the guy who owns the press has lots of freedom in how they use it. it has been ever thus.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  40. eh? CBS/Columbia was her record label by swschrad · · Score: 1

    and I hear they got along well in the line at the bank.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  41. Cnet reviewers have been industry by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    shills for years now. Why would it suprise anyone that they would react this way. They are not in business to review products or advise potential buyers but to MAKE A PROFIT, and advert for their corporate owners.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  42. Old saw by hicksw · · Score: 1

    "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one" -- A. J. Liebling
    --
    It was a drunk and stormy night. Four shots called out -- drink me.