Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the but-if-you're-very-very-nice-to-us dept.

Television 138

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!"

cancel ×

138 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

All the News ... (4, Funny)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about 2 years ago | (#42563675)

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

Re:All the News ... (1)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 2 years ago | (#42563763)

CBS owned CNET

Re:All the News ... (5, Funny)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#42564435)

CBS owned CNET

But apparently CBS never learned to spell Streisand.

Re:All the News ... (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about 2 years ago | (#42564049)

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

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

1st amendment is for the government (4, Informative)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#42563693)

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

Re:1st amendment is for the government (5, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | about 2 years ago | (#42563743)

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.

Re:1st amendment is for the government (-1, Redundant)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#42563769)

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

Re:1st amendment is for the government (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42564029)

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.

Re:1st amendment is for the government (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#42564447)

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

Re:1st amendment is for the government (5, Insightful)

Dutchmaan (442553) | about 2 years ago | (#42565727)

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

Re:1st amendment is for the government (2)

Culture20 (968837) | about 2 years ago | (#42564427)

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

Re:1st amendment is for the government (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42566133)

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.

Re:1st amendment is for the government (2, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#42565267)

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.

Re:1st amendment is for the government (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#42565427)

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.

Re:1st amendment is for the government (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 2 years ago | (#42566681)

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.

Re:1st amendment is for the government (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42567337)

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.

Re:1st amendment is for the government (2)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#42565903)

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.

Re:1st amendment is for the government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42566429)

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.

Learn history more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42566239)

> 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?

Re:1st amendment is for the government (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42563781)

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

Re:1st amendment is for the government (4, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | about 2 years ago | (#42564789)

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.

Re:1st amendment is for the government (4, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#42563813)

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.

is cnet seen publically (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42563865)

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

Re:is cnet seen publically (3, Insightful)

Dr Damage I (692789) | about 2 years ago | (#42563955)

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.

Re:is cnet seen publically (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42564083)

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

Re:is cnet seen publically (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42564243)

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.

Re:is cnet seen publically (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42565323)

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

Re:1st amendment is for the government (4, Informative)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#42564131)

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.

Re:1st amendment is for the government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42564917)

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.

Re:1st amendment is for the government (2)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#42566121)

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.

Re:1st amendment is for the government (3, Insightful)

Dr Damage I (692789) | about 2 years ago | (#42563909)

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

Re:1st amendment is for the government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42564943)

So who is CBS?

Sad (1)

DaveAtFraud (460127) | about 2 years ago | (#42565287)

...

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

Re:1st amendment is for the government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42565481)

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.

Re:1st amendment is for the government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42563773)

Spoken like a true Soviet!

Re:1st amendment is for the government (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 2 years ago | (#42564613)

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.

Re:1st amendment is for the government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42563795)

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).

Re:1st amendment is for the government (2)

ZipK (1051658) | about 2 years ago | (#42563873)

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

Re:1st amendment is for the government (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | about 2 years ago | (#42564141)

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.

Re:1st amendment is for the government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42564347)

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. [escapistmagazine.com]

Re:1st amendment is for the government (4, Insightful)

TrekkieGod (627867) | about 2 years ago | (#42564557)

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. [wikipedia.org] 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).

Re:1st amendment is for the government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42564907)

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.

Re:1st amendment is for the government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42565035)

Go slit your fucking wrists communist, nigger loving fucktard.

- alen (225700)

Re:1st amendment is for the government (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#42565585)

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

the airwaves going over your land (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42567017)

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.

Re:1st amendment is for the government (1)

mrmeval (662166) | about 2 years ago | (#42565151)

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?

Re:1st amendment is for the government (3, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#42565397)

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.

Thanks CBS! (5, Insightful)

Intropy (2009018) | about 2 years ago | (#42563709)

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.

Re:Thanks CBS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42563935)

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.

Re:Thanks CBS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42565587)

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

SageTV+ComSkip = no ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42563739)

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

Misidentification. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42563749)

Who says Cnet are journalists?

Re:Misidentification. (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#42563819)

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

Re:Misidentification. (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 2 years ago | (#42564361)

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". :-) ]

CBS no longer cares (5, Insightful)

storkus (179708) | about 2 years ago | (#42563791)

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...

Re:CBS no longer cares (1)

Required Snark (1702878) | about 2 years ago | (#42564197)

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.

Re:CBS no longer cares (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42564537)

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.

Re:CBS no longer cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42566163)

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".

Re:CBS no longer cares (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#42567169)

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

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"?

Got to love modern day freedom of the press! (1)

Un pobre guey (593801) | about 2 years ago | (#42563793)

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.

Freedom of the press? Uh, no. (1)

ZipK (1051658) | about 2 years ago | (#42563817)

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.

Re:Freedom of the press? Uh, no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42563939)

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

Makes sense (5, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | about 2 years ago | (#42563823)

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.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42564593)

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".

Re:Makes sense (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#42565399)

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

Sell off News.com domain (1)

Media_Scumbag (217725) | about 2 years ago | (#42563925)

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

Lawsuit? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42563947)

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.

RE: "Got to love modern day freedom of the press." (1)

JonniLuv (864539) | about 2 years ago | (#42563959)

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.

Got to love modern day freedom of the press! (3, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | about 2 years ago | (#42564013)

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.

Re:Got to love modern day freedom of the press! (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#42565629)

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".

It's not "modern" freedom of the press (1)

mschaffer (97223) | about 2 years ago | (#42564021)

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.

Re:It's not "modern" freedom of the press (3, Insightful)

Joe U (443617) | about 2 years ago | (#42564065)

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

Journalistic Integrity no... Responsibilities yes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42564041)

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.

Remember the Slate Firefox catastrophe? (2, Interesting)

multicoregeneral (2618207) | about 2 years ago | (#42564081)

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.

Nothing to do with free press (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42564165)

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

I can see why they are doing it (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 2 years ago | (#42564327)

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.

Tell CBS that's unacceptable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42564355)

How do we do that?

Well then... (1)

Blinkin1200 (917437) | about 2 years ago | (#42564367)

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."

And on that news.... (3)

acedotcom (998378) | about 2 years ago | (#42564371)

....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.

Re:And on that news.... (1)

Wilf_Brim (919371) | about 2 years ago | (#42564651)

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.

Re:And on that news.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42564783)

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

Re:And on that news.... (2)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 2 years ago | (#42564735)

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

Re:And on that news.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42564823)

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

Re:And on that news.... (2)

luther349 (645380) | about 2 years ago | (#42564801)

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.

Re:And on that news.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42566659)

57 channels and nothing on . . .

Take it to their forums (1)

PimpDawg (852099) | about 2 years ago | (#42564529)

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

Revoke CBS Press Credentials (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42564643)

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.

The Hopper is hilarious (2, Interesting)

GrandCow (229565) | about 2 years ago | (#42564817)

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!

Re:The Hopper is hilarious (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42565449)

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.

The first rule of CBS club.... (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about 2 years ago | (#42564879)

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.

Not So Bad, Actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42564955)

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 ?

No story, just a little thing called Synergy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42565567)

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.

CBS and siblings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42565681)

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)

Didn't you stop reading Cnet when CBS bought them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42565725)

I did.

press freedom confusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42565915)

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.

another reason (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#42565941)

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.

Re:another reason (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#42566639)

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.

History repeats (3, Interesting)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | about 2 years ago | (#42567173)

How do you think the Hearst empire was built?

yo (1)

buddyglass (925859) | about 2 years ago | (#42567261)

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".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?