Slashdot Mirror


CES Ditches CNET After CBS Scandal Over Dish's Hopper

An anonymous reader writes in about the latest fallout from CNET's parent company, CBS banning Dish Network's hopper from reviews and award lists. "The Consumer Electronics Association has not only today bestowed its Best in Show title upon the same Dish Network product that started this whole mess in the first place — in the same release, the group says it will no longer work with CNET. CES has enjoyed a long and productive partnership with CNET and the Best of CES awards,' said Karen Chupka, the CEA's senior vice president for events and conferences. "However, we are concerned the new review policy will have a negative impact on our brand should we continue the awards relationship as currently constructed. We look forward to receiving new ideas to recognize the 'best of the best' products introduced at the International CES.""

123 comments

  1. Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone add this to the list of examples on Wikipedia's "Streisand Effect" entry.

    1. Re:Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I'm not sure what you think this has to due with the Streisand Effect. That's when you try to censor something to keep it secret but instead cause more people to know about it than if you had not censored it. That has nothing do do with this story. They didn't refuse to acknowledge dish in hopes that nobody would learn about it. They were simply refusing to recognize the product because their parent company felt the product went against their interests. Kind of like how some refuse to shop at Walmart, Chick Fill-A, or other companies because they don't like their corporate practices. That aren't doing that in hopes that nobody will learn Walmart exists.

    2. Re:Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A group of nerds being told they have to change their "Best in Show" award because their corporate overlords dislike the winner they chose isn't censorship?

    3. Re:Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I didn't say it wasn't censorship. I said it wasn't the Streisand Effect. Those are 2 different things. The Streisand Effect implies censorship, but censorship doesn't imply the Streisand Effect. The Streisand Effect had absolutely nothing to do with this story.

    4. Re:Quick by Daetrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They may not have believed that no one would learn Dish Network existed, but i'm pretty sure the intent of blocking the award was to prevent endorsing it and advertising it further. Now however more people know that the geeks at CNET wanted to give the product an award than would have known if the management at CNET had just kept their mouths shut and let Dish Network have the award in the first place.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    5. Re:Quick by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Kind of like how some refuse to shop at Walmart, Chick Fill-A, or other companies because they don't like their corporate practices."

      Dubious analogy: It would be more like a restaurant critic being ordered not to praise Chick Fil-A's food because Zagat doesn't approve of them.

      The story here isn't that CBS dislikes the Dish Hopper; but that the alleged 'journalists' at Cnet have neither the editorial independence nor the integrity to act in the interests of their customers instead of their owners.

    6. Re:Quick by hawguy · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the Wikipedia page:

      The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.

      Isn't that exactly what happened? CBS didn't want the product to earn the award (thus giving it greater recognition and popularity), so they told CNet not to grant it the award, thereby causing extra press attention focused on the product.

      If that's not enough to sway you, how about an article from the guy who is widely recognized as starting the phrase "The Streisand Effect", where he also says that this is an example of the effect?

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130111/00145421637/just-how-dumb-is-it-cbs-to-block-cnet-giving-dish-award.shtml

      by Mike Masnick

      Hello Streisand Effect. There were approximately one gazillion articles this week about products coming out of CES, and the place was wall to wall with journalists -- probably half of whom were coming up with their own "best of" lists. Most people were completely saturated with CES stories and would barely glance at such a story. Except... now, tons of people are suddenly finding out about this awesome Dish DVR, the Hopper with Slingbox.

      I think that when the guy that coined the phrase calls it the Streisand Effect, you pretty much have to go with what he says.

    7. Re:Quick by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wouldn't have heard about this award if they hadn't tried to censor it. I seriously doubt I'm the only one. Hence Streisand Effect.

    8. Re:Quick by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Indeed. In a proper journalistic enterprise the editors would resign in protest.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Quick by djl4570 · · Score: 2

      It would be like Dice killing a positive story about Monster on /.

    10. Re:Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well hey. You know, every creator is entitled to ruin their own creation. If this guy wants to do it too, then who am I to argue, but I'll always know that Barbara files suit first.
      Originally the Streisand Effect was about trying to keep something from becoming public. That's not what's going on here. This was a product from a nationally known brand at the top of their field. A company that nearly every American is familiar with. And they've been publicizing the heck out of this product/feature. This product has been all over the news for the better part of the last year. It was WAY to late to attempt to suppress knowledge of this thing. And really, if that's what CBS wanted to do, they went about it the wrong way:

      http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/14/3874682/exclusive-cbs-forced-cnet-editors-to-recast-vote-after-hopper-win:

      CBS Interactive representatives told The Verge...that the ban on coverage is limited only to specific products implicated in ongoing litigation with CNET's parent company; and that the ban only applied to product reviews and that news coverage would be exempt.

      So they supposedly wanted to suppress knowledge of this product but then said "oh, but it's alright to cover news stories about it"?

      Sorry, but this isn't Streisand Effect unless you mangle the meaning of the term.

    11. Re:Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if we're criticizing analogies, is Zagat in a legal dispute with Chick Fil-A?

    12. Re:Quick by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      No, better to stay and make them fire you for having integrity. Often they'll back down before that, so you'll get to report accurately and keep your job (while starting to look for another, if you wish).

    13. Re:Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're in a legal dispute with Dish over this. Don't you think it would have been a bit damning to their case for Dish to say in court "but you even gave us awards for how great and innovative of a product it is"?

    14. Re:Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can expect that one of these two things will happen, for editors and/or journalists. People within CNET are ready to jump after their strenuous attempts to get CBS to reverse its position were rebuffed at the last moment.

    15. Re:Quick by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'm the same. Therefore Streisand Effect.

      --
      You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
    16. Re:Quick by gargleblast · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It wouldn't be a bit damning to their case. CBS would simply have to tell the judge "CNet has editorial independence".

      The current situation is far more damning.

    17. Re:Quick by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      At least one did exactly that. It didn't stop them from pursuing the approach they did.

    18. Re:Quick by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't go that far. The journalist in question resigned over CBS's refusal to allow him to issue his best of show. What more did you expect him to do? It's not like he can force them to publish his choice...

    19. Re:Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CNET's customers are its advertisers not the people who read the articles for free.

    20. Re:Quick by Dahamma · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This isn't s freaking law of physics, it's an Internet meme. It's meaning is what people say it is, and everyone except you seems to say otherwise.

    21. Re:Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was a bit more than a "dislike". There is a massive lawsuit that CBS/CNET is in with DISH. Les Moonves decided, in his infinite wisdom, to pull any of the reviews because of said lawsuit.

      http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_22436602/cbs-files-amended-lawsuit-against-dish-network-over

    22. Re:Quick by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      They're in a legal dispute with Dish over this. Don't you think it would have been a bit damning to their case for Dish to say in court "but you even gave us awards for how great and innovative of a product it is"?

      Quite irrelevant, since the court isn't deciding if the product is "great and innovative". It's deciding if it's legal. It's easy to think of products that would be great to use, but are arguably illegal.

    23. Re:Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      proving you have not read more than an article or two if you maintain that he wants everything 'free'...
      your ignorance -and/or spitefulness- is showing, sparky...

    24. Re:Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

      This furore has me looking at Dish and the Hopper when I had not been to keen to go with Dish. I would do this just to spite CBS. And to skip their commercials.

      I do like CBS. I watch 2 of their shows. Which is more than I watch from ABC, NBC and Fox combined.

    25. Re:Quick by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Originally the Streisand Effect was about trying to keep something from becoming public. That's not what's going on here. This was a product from a nationally known brand at the top of their field. A company that nearly every American is familiar with. And they've been publicizing the heck out of this product/feature. This product has been all over the news for the better part of the last year. It was WAY to late to attempt to suppress knowledge of this thing.

      This is the first I have heard of this awesome new box, the Hopper. I guess it's possible that I would have heard of it also if it won the award. But then it would not have a nice stick-it-to-the-man story attached to it and I may have just skimmed over an announcement of a device that can't touch what my MythBox already does. So to me it looks like they drove attention to a device they wanted people not to notice. A perfect example of the Streisand Effect, different from the original, but still the same effect.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    26. Re:Quick by hardluck86 · · Score: 2

      I think I can clarify something here.

      The knowledge of the existence of the Dish Network Hopper wasn't being censored.
      The knowledge that it has WON best in show by CNET is what was being censored.
      And possibly the actual fact of the winning itself was being overruled for corporate reasons, not legitimate technical ones.

      So from that perspective - Streisand Effect.

    27. Re:Quick by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      This is the first I have heard of this awesome new box, the Hopper.

      rollseyes at Slashdot nerds who don't notice anything outside of nerd culture.

      There have been commercials about the damn thing for months now.....and for DirecTV's equivalent "Genie". But you, being a slashdot nerd, will probably claim that you wrote a shell script for your MythTV box that uses ffmpeg or transcode to automatically analyze tv shows and strip commercials out of what little you record, and besides you only watch fansubbed anime in MKV format anway.

    28. Re:Quick by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      No, actually it's all Netflix and Torrents lately. We even got rid of the cable TV.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    29. Re:Quick by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      actually it's all Netflix and Torrents lately.

      So fansubbed Anime in MKV it is then. :-)

    30. Re:Quick by DedTV · · Score: 1
      It all depends on what your definition of is is and if is is what you think it is or if is is something else. If is means is, then this is The Streisand Effect But if is isn't is then is isn't. To me it's pretty clear is is is and not isn't but perhaps could be if isn't isn't isn't.

      Which of course would lead one to conclude that such vehement defense of a individual's strict definition of the Streisand Effect is a fine example of the "Almost dumb enough to be a lawyer" effect.

    31. Re:Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cable was illegal until big money got into it, then suddenly... poof! Legal!

      When it was just people sharing big antennas or a sattelite dish, it was all "theft" and "copyright vioations".

      Luckily (I say because what we have is better than what we had), it was mostly the local broadcasters (in big cities) that were sueing, because there was really no such thing as a "national broadcast" outside of the news. So it was mostly local programming being "stolen", with just a FEW already nationally distributed programs (that were paid for by advertizing, so bigger audience, Yay!) thrown in, so the lawsuits were not coordinated or heavily financed. But when Money noticed that some of these groups were charging their members for access, Money saw an oppertunity to make more Money, created real corporations with real (expensive) lawyers, changed a few laws, and suddenly Cable was a respectable business, no longer shady at best, and Sky Pirates at worst.

      So never forget that anything illegal, can be made legal, so long as there is enough profit in it.

      It's been that way for hundreds of years.

    32. Re:Quick by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      better to stay

      You ever had a bos that considered you his enemy? Not disliked you, or enjoyed making your life hell, but considered you an enemy?

      That is an untenible and professionally dangerous situation.

      Bosses HATE being questioned or shown-up. They DISPISE being publically humiliated and being exposed as unethicle, and possibly a criminal. That's not the sort of thing they're likely to laugh about over drinks later.
      Being a boss is about being in control. If they loose that, they've been gelded as a boss.

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

    33. Re:Quick by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You ever had a bos that considered you his enemy? Not disliked you, or enjoyed making your life hell, but considered you an enemy?

      Yes, and I didn't walk out at the first sign on enmity. I told him it was all ok, and I found a better job while still collecting a paycheck. Walking out usually hurts the person walking out worst.

  2. Screw c|net by MrEricSir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The company had zero integrity before the Dish scandal happened. Why would anyone work with them in the first place? Weren't their scammy download site and payola-based game review sites damning enough already?

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Screw c|net by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Feather that broke the camel's back.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:Screw c|net by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 4, Interesting

      C|Net? They're so 2002. Do lay-users even consider these folks relevant any more? I figured everyone thought of them as they do other DotCom bubble era companies like Geocities and Tripod.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    3. Re:Screw c|net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Kinda like slashdot?

    4. Re:Screw c|net by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      You're telling me? I almost went to work for them in 2002... Fortunately they DotBombed (got eaten up by ZDNet and what was to be my position 'put on hold pending restructuring' 2 days before I was supposed to start), and my career path took a more circuitous route.

      Still... It was a very near thing. *shudder*

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:Screw c|net by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that Cnet doesn't enjoy the feelings of vague nostalgia that a lot of the other bubble-era companies do...

    6. Re:Screw c|net by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      I'm starting to wonder that myself. There's far too much pandering to lay-users and at the expense of "News for Nerds". Maybe it's just me but it seems to be sliding ever more rapidly now that Dice is running things.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    7. Re:Screw c|net by Polyphagic · · Score: 1

      Adnix, Sagan Contact.

      That is all.

    8. Re:Screw c|net by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Good thing you instead chose to take that job at G4!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    9. Re:Screw c|net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do lay-users even consider these folks relevant any more?

      Not to burst the Slashdot bubble, but yes, they are still very relevant to the "lay-user".
      - Top 5 HDTV
      - Top 5 Tablet
      - Top 5 Smartphone
      etc.

      Trying I'm feeling lucky on any of those. The average layer-user isn't going to spend hours scouring technical forums for detailed knowledge. They'll take the top site Google recommends and provide a decent summary in a 1-2 pages, and possibly look at Amazon for user reviews.

      I don't agree with the crap their overlords pulled, but give credit where credit is due.

    10. Re:Screw c|net by EzInKy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Insightful point. Even on slashdot it's becomming harder and harder to find news for nerds that you might have missed elsewhere. I've always expected a few "infomercials" here, but recently it has become more and more blantent. And the war against anon posters here is totatally ridiculous. You can't speak free if you are worrying about having a job.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    11. Re:Screw c|net by DirePickle · · Score: 1

      They're still one of the best places to go for things like TV reviews, for all of their faults.

    12. Re:Screw c|net by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      Problem is, can you trust those reviews, especially now knowing that they don't have editorial independence?

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    13. Re:Screw c|net by Chrondike · · Score: 1

      Cnet should not be relevant. It's one of the most biased tech sites out there.

    14. Re:Screw c|net by dywolf · · Score: 2

      Certainly, you can trust their reviews, if you have a brain in your head. A review about a product owned by CBS that they gush over is ovbiously suspicious. But really, the whole hopper thing is just because of a fued between Dish and the major networks. The overwhelming majority of CNETs reviews, being things like routers, printers, and TVs, are going to be unaffected. But its also good to remember that reviews sites are rarely totally unbiased (showing my age, but i remember PCGamer when they were still "relevant" getting caught cheating with reviews of big advertisers) and as the reader its your job to engage the brain and realize when someone is pandering.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    15. Re:Screw c|net by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Do lay-users even consider these folks relevant any more?

      CNET is one of the pre-eminent tech reporting sites, with a huge readership. If you have a tech company then your PR firm will work hard to get you on CNET because your product will get in front of a lot of eyeballs.

    16. Re:Screw c|net by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Most of the posts from Anonymous Cowards are crap. All you need to get a Slashdot account is a throwaway email address. Logging in lets people keep track of your reputation. It's annoying to have to slog through AC comments for the gems. Surely, under one of these squishy treats...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Screw c|net by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I have VERY rarely gone to the web site, but I think they produce a lot informative and entertaining video podcasts.. That I get for free and effectively no advertisement. (They used to do basically an ad for their other podcasts, and it was long enough to be annoying, but less than 30 seconds so a pain to FF through.) CNET Update and CNET News cover lots of areas, the "first look" ones cover products, and maybe they're paid to review certain products? I don't know, but it's one way I get an overview of the GAZILLION different Android phones.

      But I applaud CES for this decision!

    18. Re:Screw c|net by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      You should add a squishy treats reference to your sig.

    19. Re:Screw c|net by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You should add a squishy treats reference to your sig.

      I shall try to remember to keep it in consideration for the next time I feel like it needs a change. It really is one of the great moments in literature, but then, so is this.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Screw c|net by infinitelink · · Score: 1

      I was curious whether others thought this of them, or if I was just being judgmental and assuming my critical abilities were better than they are. And this had me thinking I didn't want to speak and make a fool of myself as well as perhaps lower a reputation unjustly.

      But CNET seems to be something easily gamed by products and companies, or perhaps that their reviewers are just automatically largely positive--maybe to get the products to review? Their reviews also seem very shallow.

      In particular it concerned me where one finds questionable east European software that other sources indicate is dangerous, but CNET offered just gloating reviews and links their site.

      Still not sure that my critical abilities or judgments formed upon them are as good as I hope, but there, I offered some input (at least here). Thanks for sharing. Though I would actually like to hear more about why their integrity is lacking.

      --
      Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
  3. Good for CES... by krelvin · · Score: 1

    Nice to see...

  4. Product awards from a commercial site compromised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wow, this is shocking. And I'm still reeling from the news about the Tour de France, I haven't decided what to do with my chest full of Lance Armstrong memorabilia.

  5. Good by irving47 · · Score: 4, Funny

    How do you like them apples, CBS?

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
    1. Re:Good by schwit1 · · Score: 1

      So true. Didn't CBS legal consider that by doing this they would be harming one of there own properties?

      Scorpion and the frog I guess.

    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CBS has long been the bully protecting antique media monopolies.

  6. This happens everywhere on all levels by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Business relationships color the news for all outlets; even NPR and PBS now have "sponsors." About 10 years ago I was watching I think CNBC when RFK Jr. started talking about poor environmental practices of GE, the parent company. The hosts actually shushed him and they immediately cut to commercial. When they came back, RFK Jr. was gone...

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:This happens everywhere on all levels by hduff · · Score: 2

      Business relationships color the news for all outlets; even NPR and PBS now have "sponsors."

      The local paper beagn to run a series of articles giving advice on how to negotiate the purchase of new and used cars. After the first installment ran, the local car dealers called the paper and threatened to withdraw all their advertising. No more articles about how to negotiate buying a car.

      Happens all the time, but mostly out of the public eye because those corporate guys know what kind of asshats it makes them look like.

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    2. Re:This happens everywhere on all levels by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Hi!

      I must be honest, the only reason I'm posting a reply is that I can't believe I'm seeing a Dogbert reference in someone's sig on Slashdot - wow, I am pleased! Yes, this is off-topic, and yes, they can Mod me down all they like, but that couldn't possibly compare with knowing there's a fellow reader of the Federation's rag on here! Hi from the GMP area! (adds Friend...)

      ps Mods, give me a break. Posted with no Karma Bonus, and this is a very specialised, very rare, meeting of minds happening here, completely accidentally. If you can be bothered to research who Dogbert is, and the "Federation" which I refer to, you'll find a rare combination of "Member of News for Nerds Site" and another profession.

      I tip my Pathfinder to you, there's very few geeks in the uniform (although one of our ACCs is a declared geek!)

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    3. Re:This happens everywhere on all levels by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2

      Dogbert is a character in the Dilbert comic.

    4. Re:This happens everywhere on all levels by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      Oh damn. Dogbert is also a regular character, in a cartoon sketch, in the Police Federation magazine (UK)! I honestly thought he was only Dogbert until you posted that...

      Yes, Dogbert is a plod in the cartoon. It's meant to be a tongue-in-cheek look at day-to-day police work. The quote above is definitely something he'd say!

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    5. Re:This happens everywhere on all levels by jittles · · Score: 1

      I think the quote was from Dilbert, though. That is definitely something that Dogbert would say in Dilbert, as well. I kind of remember reading that somewhere and I don't read anything from the UK, except BBC News.

    6. Re:This happens everywhere on all levels by Dorkmaster+Flek · · Score: 1

      But you have to wonder how much good will, especially in the Internet age, said paper would receive if they then publicized the fact that the local car dealers were trying to strongarm them. That right there might give them a nice boost in readership, which means the other companies advertising in their paper get more eyeballs. I think community and (digital) word of mouth are the new advertising currency.

      --
      I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
    7. Re:This happens everywhere on all levels by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Happens all the time, but mostly out of the public eye because those corporate guys know what kind of asshats it makes them look like.

      This is the kind of stuff I think about when people complain about adblock. Well, that and this.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:This happens everywhere on all levels by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      I'm agreeing that it could well be from Dilbert (which I don't remember seeing, or it being that interesting if I did see it in passing), it's just that I was under the impression that Dogbert, the irreverant cartoon voice of the Police Federation's magazine, was the only Dogbert, and since the quote would definitely be something he'd say (regarding the relevant topic - policing the UK) I just assumed it WAS our Dogbert...

      Please see my other note about how silly it was of me to ASS U ME, we can all learn from the craziness I posted that night!

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  7. hopper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What is a dish's hopper?

    1. Re:hopper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i knew this was going to happen, i posted the article with the words "hop hop hop" after the title, it was removed and there you go, it's a thing that goes hop

      since im complaining, R i think you spent more time on /. than paying attention to the presentation by the other R, i left soon after

    2. Re:hopper? by sjames · · Score: 2

      A multi-channel DVR with a commercial skip feature. I'm guessing the latter would be the part CBS hates so much.

    3. Re:hopper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... or they at least have to pretend that they (CBS) didn't know about it.

      Were they (CBS) lied to? Was Hopper a DVR that was designed to enforce watching commercials? Did Dish tell CBS that this was supposed to be the one independant DVR that didn't? The consumer pays extra for it so they don't have to watch commercials, right? I mean they(CBS) did their due dilligence, made sure that their paying customers (the advertisers) were getting their air time, so they(CBS) must be clean. /s

      ALSO I'm not bitching at sjames directly. This has more to do with who gets paid and lawyers getting paid as a result. I don't know what the guys that made the Hopper did. I can build my own DVR tyvm.

    4. Re:hopper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have three VCRs (yes, we're all analog here) with fast-forward. Does the same thing, one even can skip forward a preset amount, just like a 30 second or programmable skip feature on DVRs.

      We've been skipping personally undesired content (e.g. skipping or fast-forwarding past commercials or for some, objectionable content like 'OMG boobies') ever since the first VCRs hit the market. Just because technology advancements allow that previously-manual task to be handled automatically, at the discretion and direction of the user, doesn't mean it should be treated any differently.

      Same applies to place shifting (you can take tapes with you) and lending/sharing/copying content you've personally recorded for non-commercial private sharing (which is permitted). No one should give a fuck that technology simply makes those things a little easier.

      ___

      I believe that ANYTHING that has aired on ANY channel you've had the opportunity to watch or record (i.e. shown on an OTA broadcast or on a paid-for subscription service) at a time you've possessed equipment able to do so, you should have the right to obtain a copy of, regardless of whether you actually recorded it yourself, from whatever source you choose. Same goes for music off the radio.

    5. Re:hopper? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm with you there. I don't object to the feature, I'm just guessing that CBS does.

  8. Re:Product awards from a commercial site compromis by penix1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And I'm still reeling from the news about the Tour de France...

    I know this is way off topic and I will try and bring it back on in the end... No promises though...lol

    It always amuses me the kerfuffle raised when sports athletes get caught using performance enhancing drugs yet people don't say shit about beauty pageant contestants who have had cosmetic surgery just to win those titles.

    It all comes down to "follow the money". It is the same with this C/Net / CBS / Dish story. Follow the money. To CBS Dish is cutting off a revenue stream it sees as essential. Dish is seen by them as cheating the system just as much as Lance did. Dish OTOH doesn't see ads as essential since their service is subscription based. So much like Lance, they don't think they did anything wrong.

    How's that for trying to bring it back?

    --
    This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
  9. CES Ditches CNET After CBS Scandal Over Dish by guttentag · · Score: 4, Funny

    In other news, the Confederation of Companies that Rely on Acronyms starting with the letter C (C-CRAC) has revoked the CES's membership for siding with a "D" company that doesn't even understand the value of an acronym over its fellow "C" members. C-SPAN will be carrying live coverage of CNET's appeal.

    1. Re:CES Ditches CNET After CBS Scandal Over Dish by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

      EXECS NIX TECHS PICKS!

      .

    2. Re:CES Ditches CNET After CBS Scandal Over Dish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another fan of George M. Cohan, I see...

  10. Re:Product awards from a commercial site compromis by theedgeofoblivious · · Score: 1

    Do what Lance Armstrong did with his chest full of "Lance Armstrong memorabilia": Go out and win the Tour de France.

  11. Why the surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Americans don't want to pay for quality news. Cheap, mediocre news is good enough, and corporate sponsorships pay for those expensive reporters. So what if a particular news site supports their parent company in corporate legal infighting? There are other news sites out there. Use one of them instead.

  12. anyone hiring tech reporters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in other news......

    the 40 CNET journalists had unanimously decided that the Hopper Sling was the most innovative product at the 2013 International

    Forty tech journalists are looking for work.

  13. In English, please!! by haruchai · · Score: 2

    I read the title 5 times and still have no fucking idea what it's about.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    1. Re:In English, please!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a TV that watches multiple channels simultaneously and skips commercials.

    2. Re:In English, please!! by irving47 · · Score: 3, Informative

      In a nutshell, CNET liked the Dish Networks DVR (digital video recorder) and publicly said so.
      CBS (Used to stand for Columbia Broadcasting System) is suing Dish.
      CBS owns CNET, and said, you can't say nice things about someone we're suing!
      So now CES (Consumer Electronics Show) says CNET can no longer have input to decide the winner of the "Best of Show" award because they have a clear (mandated from their parent company) bias.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    3. Re:In English, please!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a pissing match between CBS and CNET wherein CNET is telling CBS to get off their lawn.

      Dish Networks incorporated ad skipping software into their PVR. CBS doesn't want it lionized even though the rest of the world does.

      CNET told CBS that it's they can't control the awards process and kindly take the bus home.

    4. Re:In English, please!! by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Thank you all for the explanations but the Slashdot editors could easily have done a better job.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    5. Re:In English, please!! by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      The Consumer Electronics Show has ended their relationship with the review site c|net as a result of said site's elimination of a new product from award consideration. The product was removed from consideration on orders from c|net's corporate overlords at CBS (one of the "Big 3" American broadcasting corporations) either because CBS is currently involved in litigation over said product or, for the more cynical/realistic, because said product threatens CBS's bottom lime.

      To summarize the explanation of the summary, c|net has lost whatever appearance of journalistic integrity they had left (which was already not much) by demonstrating exactly why broadcast corporations shouldn't own news publishers.

    6. Re:In English, please!! by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      CBS owns CNET, and said, you can't say nice things about someone we're suing!

      And CBS released a statement saying 'CNET maintains 100% editorial independence, and always will'

      BUT

      that's 'in terms of covering actual news,', i.e. only when we say they can.

      http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/14/3874682/exclusive-cbs-forced-cnet-editors-to-recast-vote-after-hopper-win

    7. Re:In English, please!! by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      CBS (Used to stand for Columbia Broadcasting System)

      Now known as the CBS section of the US Department Of Propaganda, a new cabinet-level department created by Mr Obama...

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    8. Re:In English, please!! by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I noticed that too.

      Dirty little disclaimers like that are proof of who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  14. CBS has no integrity, why would a subsidiary? by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not sure how long ago it happened, but I became aware of CBS's complete lack of journalistic standards when Dan Rather tried to scuttle the Bush campaign with forged documents.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  15. Came to post the same thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's gibberish. Can't /. afford real editors, for crying out loud?

  16. I need sleep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I need sleep because it looked like "The CIA surrounded CES since seeing CNET on CBS and served seven scientific sequestrations so somebody sensing a sacking stalls statistical scribes."

  17. good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good

  18. WebmistressRachel... by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

    ...spends ages writing a reply, making lots of assumptions based on a sig... clicks submit... goes to read "slashdot.org/~hduff" page, facepalm!

    No reference whatsoever to the line of work referred toby me (and the sig), no topics or posts related to it, just a good quote in the sig, from the Police Federation's (UK) magazine for members of the Fed. Yep, a it's a union for frontline (below Inspecter rank) Police officers.

    Boy, did I get the wrong end of the, er, baton... (winds neck back in, reminds herself why she was taught "Never assume - ASS U ME makes an ASS of U and ME", straightens hat, whistles, "Move along, nothing to see here folks...")

    ps I'll probably get modded Offtopic for the other post, and Insightful for this one - for self-revelation and the ASSUME thing - it's a useful one, that. Remember it - I should have! ;-)

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    1. Re:WebmistressRachel... by Prune · · Score: 1

      Please tell me what devilish mixture of banned substances you injected in your veins before you set out to write these last two posts.

      Mods, I dare you to read the parent post without your heads exploding.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    2. Re:WebmistressRachel... by mekkab · · Score: 1

      now, to bring this all in line; Scott Adams should sue to silence the Federation's Dogbert (which 'Mericans have never heard of), which would spurn a cavalcade of 'news' articles, which would bring a UK police rag to prominence, which would have pedants coming out of the woodwork to claim how this was not the Striesand effect.

      Good times!

      /Yeah, this got a chuckle from me... schadenfreude is the schönste freude!

      --
      In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    3. Re:WebmistressRachel... by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      Wow, this is actually amazing, and it would be all my fault for jumping the er... baton on this one.

      Only one slight correction, and an observation of a further potential consequence.

      The Police Federation is a Union for officers of below Inspector rank ("rank and file") serving in UK Police Forces. The rag is a somewhat left-leaning, introspective commentary on life in the job, and how wider changes (only observable from the unique point of view of a rank-and-file constable) have a huge impact on the Common Man(TM). In other words, they know all about the banking fraud, they know just much damage cuts to frontline policing is going to do to this country, and they know all about the corrupt links and nods and winks going on at higher levels - for example:

      In the Force (cash for facts)

      Higher up in the Force (govt. oversight - despite the fact UK Police are sworn to remain neutral and simply enforce laws, most Forces (not all) will move a protest, for example, if told to do so, without due process of law)

      In the Media (it's not the Police who put out "missing" stuff, it's the Media - do you think they would spend their own money helping police find - for example, an average unemployed man??)

      In the NHS (Jimmy Saville, et al, nod nod wink wink, we all know what dirty beasts these "secret societies" encourage... whether it's "Illuminati" or just plain warped Christianity!!!)

      And everywhere else in society, too. They write about this stuff, and about how powerless they feel when reasonable suspicion is present in their minds but a Warrant may not be forthcoming from the Duty Inspector, for example... so forget it. Move on. 999 calls to deal with.

      So, moving onto consequences, if the above happened, Utopia would quickly follow. When the protesters realise that the Police are not, after all, their ultimate enemy, and that the Police are more like them than they thought, both sides will find their real enemy. Utopia will quickly follow. Well, we live in hope...

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  19. Re:CBS has no integrity, why would a subsidiary? by pipelayerification · · Score: 1

    Everyone's a sinner.

  20. Re:Product awards from a commercial site compromis by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 1

    It works the same in every area of life. You get what you incentivize not what you profess to believe or support.

    It is why people cheat in college classes. Many are memory based classes and are designed to encourage cheating regardless of what the professors claim to support.

    Anywhere in society you see behavior other than what you want or think the system should have it is because you are giving an incentive for that behavior and no amount of rule changing is going to fix that.

    That is why we have can harsh anti-drug laws, anti-cheating codes of conduct, laws about what companies can do etc but as long as the reward is greater than any penalty and the odds of being caught are low people will do what makes the most sense.

    Some people do learn though. I see less cheating in engineering classes where the exams are open book, notes, calculator, previous exams etc because it does not do any good. The exams are purely about understanding.

    For memorization based classes I see people using Adderall and other drugs to do well in the class and damned be any future consequences. Universities can even say it is bad that people use drugs to pass those classes but nothing they say will really stop it. Mostly the problem is that in the short term the drugs work, you do better in class and people don't care about long term damage.

    Most chemistry departments might as well be sponsored by Adderall given how much memorization I see in them. The sad things is so many people studying to become doctors while they damage their brains to do well in tests in the short term.

    --
    Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
  21. Re:CBS has no integrity, why would a subsidiary? by ageoffri · · Score: 2

    The Bush defense is old and played out. The OP never said anything about defending Bush. Just that CBS flat out lied to discredit him on a specific issue.

    --
    -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
  22. Re:CBS has no integrity, why would a subsidiary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    And that's one way we can tell you're a right-winger. The bad journalism angle was just a smokescreen to hide the many legitimate claims made against Bush. Rove really was at the top of his game under Bush, considering how many awful things he managed to get almost completely ignored by the public at large.

  23. Re:CBS has no integrity, why would a subsidiary? by jcr · · Score: 2

    > you still want to defend George W.

    When did I say anything of the kind?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  24. Re:CBS has no integrity, why would a subsidiary? by jcr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    >you're a right-winger.

    Not everyone fits into one of the two boxes in your tiny little mind, sunshine.

    Like any other Libertarian, I'm no fan of GWB, and as it happens my distaste for the current teleprompter-in-chief is due to his failure to reverse any of Bush's power grabs.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  25. Re:CBS has no integrity, why would a subsidiary? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

    I totally respected you until the "teleprompter" reference. The teleprompter screaming is totally asinine.

    Bush couldn't even use a teleprompter. He READ his speeches out of a 3 ring binder. Go look one up!

    There is tons criticize Obama for that aren't imagined or silly. You can do better.

  26. Re:CBS has no integrity, why would a subsidiary? by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    In retrospect, a noble cause.

  27. Da Hoppah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  28. CNet by Chrondike · · Score: 1

    ...is nothing but a rag these days. Spouting pro-Apple gibberish all over the place and discounting other, more promising tech. Doesn't surprise me their lack of independence went so far as to fully censoring a product that 'the company' didn't like. It's ridiculous and no one should take this from a 'news' source. There's better sites out there anyways. Cnet writing is garbage.

  29. Re:CBS has no integrity, why would a subsidiary? by operagost · · Score: 1

    The truth is always the noblest cause.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  30. Re:CBS has no integrity, why would a subsidiary? by operagost · · Score: 2

    I think the space of a post on Slashdot is a little too small to rattle off the shortcomings of Obama.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  31. War against Anonymous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well fuck you too, buddy!

    (Seriously though, what did you mean?)

  32. Re:CBS has no integrity, why would a subsidiary? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    "While Dan Rather attempts to rationalize the network's heartless decision to air this despicable 'terrorist propaganda video,' it is beyond our comprehension that any mother, wife, father or sister should have to relive this horrific tragedy and watch their loved one being repeatedly terrorized," the family said.

    "Terrorists have made this video confident that the American media would broadcast it and thereby serve their exact purpose. By showing this video, CBS or any other broadcaster willing to show it proves that they fall without shame into the terrorists' plan."
    -- Mariane Pearl, May 15, 2002

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  33. Hopper is kind of a joke by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    The Dish Hopper is somewhat of a joke, It is a way to convert satellite broadcast into streaming - you see, it isn't a DVR at all but a device that requests something be saved for you at Dish Network HQ. Then, later you can have it streamed to you over the Internet. They claim the device is limited to 2000 hours, but this would appear to be an entirely arbitrary number. Since your "saved" content is likely shared with everyone else, why would there be any limit at all?

    Do you really think that they are saving a unique copy of Two Broke Girls rather than simply having one that everyone shares?

    Unfortunately, it is going to suffer the same fate as all streaming - congestion. We are starting to see streaming degrading because of Internet congestion now and it is only going to get worse as time goes on. Having a faster link from the "head end" to the home isn't going to fix it as long as we have a node configuration where a node feeds a neighborhood - both FIOS and every cable and DSL system utilizes this sort of configuration.

    Cox in Phoenix is trying to be forward looking and reducing the number of homes per node from 1000 to 500 and that may help somewhat. But with higher and higher bandwidth expectations (see Netflix recent announcement), once we move into a point where streaming is being done by a large number of households it would have to be more like 100 homes per node - and that isn't going to happen without major restructuring. Major, as in when we moved cable from RF to digital distribution.

    Most other cable networks are at 1000 homes per node and maybe 1Gb feed to each node. That means if homes are hoping for 10Mb/sec streaming only a 1 in 10 is going to get it. When we get past 1 in 10 streaming, that is about the end for streaming as a distribution technique.

    So how long could the Hopper possibly last? Maybe three years. Maybe. Converting from satellite broadcast to streaming is a silly thing for Dish to be doing as there is no impending collapse of satellite distribution. Sort of like Netflix dropping,or thinking about and quickly forgetting about dropping DVD distribution.

    I have three Roku boxes and an Apple TV box. I expect them all to be paperweights in 1-2 years.

    1. Re:Hopper is kind of a joke by ezelkow1 · · Score: 1

      Ummmmm, no, your completely wrong. It gets the transponder stream from the satellite and saves that. There is no streaming from an IP headend anywhere involved unless you are watching actual IPVOD movies that you have purchased. There is a 2TB hdd in the box, it is saved there

  34. Rather was duped... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rather was duped into believing that he'd found genuine documents and was then duped into using them in an attempt to reveal the questionable history of GWB.

    We need only to remember that GWB was, according to some accounts, something of a screw-up during his younger years and then recall that his father GHWB was a congressman, an ambassador, VP of the US, Director of the CIA, and President of the US during those years.

    Question: do you think it possible or likely that a loving father with that kind of power and connections could have attempted to protect his wayward son? That he could have had various real documents go missing, or "red herring" documents put in their place?

    When considering the reaction to Rather's embarrassment, do you recall the immediate outpouring of support for GWB from those who'd served with him in the Air Guard? The dozens of fellow pilots and support personnel who came forward to testify that they'd seen him everytime, on time, at every meeting? Me neither.

  35. Re:CBS has no integrity, why would a subsidiary? by xevioso · · Score: 1

    Your side lost. get over it.

  36. Skipping commercials is freedom of speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Freedom of speech is also the freedom not listen to content not in your interest.

    I'm wondering what the big networks will do about other commercial skipping services like commercialbreak.com ?

  37. Re:Product awards from a commercial site compromis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sad things is so many people studying to become doctors while they damage their brains to do well in tests in the short term.

    Got evidence to back up that claim?

  38. Re:CBS has no integrity, why would a subsidiary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Walter Cronkite did that sixty years ago.

  39. Re:CBS has no integrity, why would a subsidiary? by jcr · · Score: 1

    Bush couldn't even use a teleprompter.

    It saddens me that you don't even realize how pathetic it is to make excuses for Obama by comparing him to Bush.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."