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!"
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
CBS owned CNET
But apparently CBS never learned to spell Streisand.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
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.
Journalism does have ethics, just because *journalists* don't follow them all the time doesn't mean they don't exist.