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.""
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."
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.
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!
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
"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.
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.
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."
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.
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.