Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the but-if-you're-very-very-nice-to-us dept.

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!"

18 of 138 comments (clear)

  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 icebike · · Score: 5, Funny

      CBS owned CNET

      But apparently CBS never learned to spell Streisand.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

  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.

  4. 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...

  5. 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.
  6. 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.

  7. 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.