Just How Dumb Is It For CBS To Block CNET From Giving Dish An Award?

from the count-the-ways dept

Fri, Jan 11th 2013 5:44am — Mike Masnick

As you may or may not recall, last year, pretty much all the TV networks sued Dish Networks over a new feature it had launched, PrimeTime Any Time (PTAT), with its Autohopper technology on its DVRs. PTAT is where it would automatically record all the major networks' prime time programming and hold onto it for a bit. Autohopper would then automatically skip over the commercials. It's important to recognize that these features, on their own, have been considered legal. VCRs had auto commercial skip ages ago and DVR technology (time shifting) has been called fair use plenty of times. Given that, the lawsuits aren't going well so far.

But, in a moment of pure stupidity, some very short-sighted suits at CBS made a really silly decision. As you may or may not have heard, CES -- the massive consumer electronics show -- has been going on all this week in Las Vegas. I just got back from there myself. At the show, Dish announced another merging of some of its products, adding its Slingbox (who they bought years back) to the same basic setup. Slingbox, of course, is for "place shifting" what the DVR is for "time shifting." You hook it up to your TV and it lets you access what's playing on your TV via the internet (so, via your computer, phone or tablet). It's hardly surprising that this is where Dish was heading.

And... the early reviews and buzz were definitely strong. For example, CNET wrote a glowing review in which executive editor David Carnoy suggested it may be the best DVR out there these days. The CNET crew liked the thing so much that they nominated it for their "Best of CES" award.

And... then the suits at CNET parent company CBS noticed. And suddenly they told CNET that it had to remove the Dish Hopper with Sling from consideration for the Best of CES award and that it was no longer allowed to review any Dish products. CNET editors appended the following note to their review:

Editors' note: The Dish Hopper with Sling was removed from consideration for the Best of CES 2013 awards due to active litigation involving our parent company CBS Corp. We will no longer be reviewing products manufactured by companies with which we are in litigation with respect to such product.

This is monumentally stupid, for a variety of reasons. Let's see how many we can come up with.

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. In fact, they're hearing that the damn thing is so good that CBS is trying to block any news of it from getting out. Talking about increasing the awareness... I have no clue whatsoever what product CNET -- or any other publication -- awarded "best of CES" to. But I sure as hell am well aware of Dish's new DVR.
Goodbye to the wall that separates the suits from the journalists at CBS/CNET. CBS execs have just confirmed that they don't want their journalists and reviewers to cover things based on the merits, but rather on what it means for their corporate masters.
Hello slippery slope. Is it really that hard to see where this heads next? Is CNET still allowed to report on the lawsuit if CBS loses? If they can't talk about the products, what about the legal issues themselves?
Goodbye journalists with credibility. Frankly, CNET has always had some of the strongest tech reporters in the business. For many years I've considered it one of the top tech news sites out there. I have tremendous respect for many of the reporters there. But, now I have to wonder how much the suits are interfering with their ability to report things accurately.
Goodbye to principled journalists who want to work for CBS. If I'm a journalist at CNET right now, I'd be seriously considering quitting in protest. This move seriously harms the brand and reputation of the site, and this is the kind of thing that journalists should stand up against. Having the suits interfere with what they can write about is generally seen as a massive offense to journalists. I would bet this leads to some of the best, most principled CNET reporters jumping ship to elsewhere.
Good luck to CNET hiring new journalists. Who wants to jump into that toxic situation?

CBS's suits should have kept quiet and not interfered with the news side of the business. They had to know that this would backfire in a big bad way. And, if they didn't know that, they deserve to lose their jobs for being pretty clueless about things that matter.

Of course, they were probably thinking that Dish would likely use the reviews from CNET as evidence in the lawsuit, which very well may be true (and could still happen since the review did go out). But it's not hard to get around that, since the legal impact of a single review is near zilch. In the end, they didn't stifle the review, they made it more well known. They didn't do anything that helps them in their lawsuit. And they're left with an undoubtedly pissed off set of journalists who may now question how free they are to actually report the news.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: ces, credibility, dvr, failures, hopper, journalism, lawsuits, reporting, slingbox, streisand effect
Companies: cbs, cnet, dish

77 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

Aside from the appalling dissolution of journalistic integrity for the sake of corporate interest, I can't help but notice that the "features" Dish is being praised for--time and place shifting--are nothing but ridiculous kludges to transfer content from an archaic mode of distribution to what people expect of the modern era--digital storage and on-demand access. Of course, none of these kludges would be necessary if it weren't for companies like CBS burning money to shore up their legacy business model against the ever increasing demands of the market.

—Ed C.

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Aria Company (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 5:10am

"Frankly, CNET has always had some of the strongest tech reporters in the business."
No. The site stopped being credible in the last decade, when it was bought by CBS.

Only a fool believes otherwise.

It's like Ars Technica, who lost its credibility when it was bought by Conde Nast.

When reading those articles from these sources, one had best have lots of grains of salt nearby.

They'll need them and for precisely the reason outlined in the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 6:43am
  
  Re:
  I have seen some once good tech sites turn into PR outlets for their corporate owners (The Register comes to mind), but I have never considered either CNET or Ars to be in that category.
  
  Although I'll need to take CNET of the list, Ars is still quality tech news - at least until there is evidence it isn't.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 9:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    Any mainstream media outlet, or any outlet that benefits from government established monopoly power (ie: broadcasting and cableco monopolies) is merely a propaganda, and not a news, outlet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 9:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh, c'mon. You're sounding like blue, or maybe some technews version of a hipster indie music fan.
      
      Is it asking too much to base your condemnation of a source on demonstrable evidence of bias?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 1:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Then how many examples to the contrary could you find me?
        
        Heck, how many of these sources would dare allow someone to use their monopolized communication mediums to challenge their government established monopoly status? and why wouldn't they allow such challenges to be heard over their monopolized medium? Because it's not in their best interests. IOW, what they are giving you is watered down propaganda.
        
        Most of these mediums are very pro-IP and they seldom, if ever, allow IP criticisms to be communicated. and to the extent that they do, it is minimal. To the extent that they have gotten slightly better at this it's only because of the Internet's influence on the media. Even this telecast entirely works under the presumption that pharmaceutical patents are a good thing without allowing criticisms to even be heard. Tell me this is not propaganda.
        
        Heck, major ISP's would censor websites criticizing them from their users if it weren't for free speech laws preventing that (and in the early days of the Internet various ISP's have tried to censor various websites from their users and either public backlash or court rulings have caused them to change their mind).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bergmayer, 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:01am
  
  Re:
  I've been reading Ars since 1999 or so and it's as good as it ever had been. It has, however, morphed from a PC enthusiast site to an intelligent technology news site.
  
  For the kinds of low-level hardware analysis that Ars used to be known for, I read Anandtech (which has been around just as long, but has been maturing over the years).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:29am
  
  Re:
  Agreed. CNET went downhill long, long ago, and you'd have to be incredibly naive to think otherwise.
  
  I gave up on them, I want to say around 7 years ago, when I got banned from their forums for showing journalistic integrity.
  
  Not to mention download.com has been a festering cesspool of CNET-sponsored adware and bloat for the better part of the last decade, despite "tested adware-free" still being part of their slogan. It's so bad now I'd sooner go to shady Russian sites for my freeware downloads.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- el_segfaulto (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 8:24am
  
  Re:
  I've always judged both sites by the intelligence of their commentators. The people commenting on CNET stories sound barely high-school educated and willing to prove to the world how little knowledge they have. Ars seems to be doing a bit better and attracts a more intelligent crowd. This may not always be a good thing as any regular reader of /. will tell you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- orbitalinsertion (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 9:10am
  
  Re:
  CBS has been busy destroying everything good about the CNET family of sites since they bought it. But then, JANA would have destroyed it as well if they could have taken over the board.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 9:27am
  
  Re:
  Just like www.edmunds.com used to be a great car buying site, before they were bought by a major car manufacture. It had all the inside scoop to out-negotiate car dealerships, now it's just a mouth piece for the industry.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- zato, 11 Jan 2013 @ 10:19am
  
  Re: CNet and DISH
  Both CNet and Ars Technica print the news that Microsoft wants you to read. I doubt that the blocking of the award to DISH happened without Microsoft input.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Alana (profile), 13 Jan 2013 @ 8:59pm
    
    Re: Re: CNet and DISH
    Both CNet and Ars Technica print the news that Microsoft wants you to read
    
    Really? I thought Ars was more biased towards how awesome they think Apple is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ed, 11 Jan 2013 @ 6:09am

Stretching...
I agree with most opinions on TechDirt, but this is a stretch. If two companies are in litigation, it doesn't seem that legally wise to have the one that's doing the suing publish an article extolling the virtues of the one being sued. This could definitely be used in the defense to the lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 6:22am
  
  Re: Stretching...
  So then YouTube should ban all Viacom properties?
  
  Google should censor all articles from the search engine that say anything remotely nice about the EU?
  
  CNET is not in litigation, CBS is.
  
  We should expect all of the media companies that are now just subdivisions of other major corporations to filter out any actual news that covers anyone they are suing?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 6:25am
    
    Re: Re: Stretching...
    Well, that's been happening all over the world for at least 150 years. It's just that now we can see the links better.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 8:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Stretching...
      Maybe, but from a trust-standpoint it is the definition of what every european state-owned news-source has done everything to avoid. Given the fact that it is journalists loosing the right to write articles on a certain subject, it is the textbook definition of censorship. So censorship has existed for 150 years? Well it is about time it stops in the "free world", dont you think?
      
      Frankly the "free world" in the west should probably be trademarked and have a forced mention of "brought to you by..."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BeaverJuicer (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:49am
    
    Re: Re: Stretching...
    The difference between YouTube/Viacom, Google/EU, etc, is that they are merely presenting information already out there, whereas CNET is presenting a brand new OPINION piece that directly contrasts the evils CBS is trying to extoll in their legal arguments.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DCL, 11 Jan 2013 @ 9:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Stretching...
      The 'differences' you point out are irrelevant since the underlying fact that the "suits" have now imposed their heavy hand has challenged the basic principle around the freedom of journalism.
      
      For true journalism having the freedom to write about the truth is what is important. It is the reason we have the 1st amendment.
      
      Sure this is a private business here, but the principle and concepts are the same. As soon as there are business rules regarding what is ok and not ok to report you lose your freedom as a journalist in that environment.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- WysiWyg (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:14am
  
  Re: Stretching...
  Surely the opinion of a couple of journalists employed by a daughter-company can't really have that much of an impact on something like this? It's not like it's CBS's Official Opinion in the matter.
  
  Besides, I don't think the lawsuit is about whether Dish delivers on it's promises or not, but whether those promises are illegal or not.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dionaea (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 11:27am
    
    Re: Re: Stretching...
    That's exactly what I was thinking. If a review like this can have an influence on a lawsuit about practices being illegal or not, there's something wrong with the justice system in place (not that there isn't anything wrong, mind you).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:29am
  
  Re: Stretching...
  "If two companies are in litigation, it doesn't seem that legally wise to have the one that's doing the suing publish an article extolling the virtues of the one being sued."
  
  CNET is a news service.
  Their parent, CBS, is in litigation with Dish.
  According to you, boy, CNET shouldn't report news regarding the CBS/Dish suit if it involves a negative result for CBS?
  
  You obviously don't know what journalism is about.
  But you DO have a handle on propaganda!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BeaverJuicer (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 8:02am
    
    Re: Re: Stretching...
    Their is a huge difference between reporting news of the suit, and publishing an opinion piece saying this thing is the next best thing since sliced bread, when your corporate masters are trying to denounce it.
    
    Just like it would be legally foolish to publish an opinion piece saying it is a box of donkey scrotum rubbed in skunk feces, as that may only lead to your liability.
    
    The safest out, just don't do a review of the product.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 8:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Stretching...
      The safest out, just don't do a review of the product.
      
      Why, because lawsuits are more important than conducting your business? Sounds like another reason why the U.S. struggles to compete on level ground with other nations.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 11:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Stretching...
      There is a huge difference between reporting news of the suit, and publishing an opinion piece saying this thing is the next best thing since sliced bread, when your corporate masters are trying to denounce it.
      
      *corrected first word for you*
      
      A review that says a piece of technology has a great functionality has nothing to do with whether the functionality is legal. Saying I like it is not the same as saying it is legal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 12:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Stretching...
      Just like it would be legally foolish to publish an opinion piece saying it is a box of donkey scrotum rubbed in skunk feces, as that may only lead to your liability.
      
      Liability for what? Anyone is perfectly free to publish an opinion piece describing something in that way (or any other) without any legal liability.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 9:57am
  
  Re: Stretching...
  If two companies are in litigation, it doesn't seem that legally wise to have the one that's doing the suing publish an article extolling the virtues of the one being sued.
  
  Fair enough if they are just a new analysis and commentary site. But if the work is influenced by litigation in this way, that work cannot be journalism.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nathan, 11 Jan 2013 @ 6:12am

And this is why...
Independent websites started by tech/gaming/movie journalist will be standing when the corporate-driven websites fall.

This is just horrible by CBS and CNET.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:10am
  
  Re: And this is why...
  Yup, Goodbye and Good Riddance to all MAFIAA and to those who just Cave in to the neighborhood bullies.
  Fuck You CBS,Fox,?ABC,Disney, and all you other damn MAFIAA Greedbags.
  
  CNET you should not have Budged but you have shown your true Colors. Green for Money and Yellow for Cowards.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 6:19am

Goodbye
7. Goodbye CNET.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 6:19am

Your point #2 has always been a problem
Ultimately all media is owned by someone and that someone controls what you see/read and how it is presented. Unfortunately most people don't seem to understand that. Just take Fox News as an example. They are the only news organization showing you the other side of a lot of issues. Maybe they are extreme sometimes, maybe even wrong, but can you honestly say that CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC aren't? Fox is the only news organization that presents the other side of the coin. All the rest might as well be one organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 6:21am
  
  Re: Your point #2 has always been a problem
  Meant to add that your point #4 is completely wrong. I unsubscribed from CNet in my RSS reader a long time ago.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ed C., 11 Jan 2013 @ 6:39am
  
  Re: Your point #2 has always been a problem
  Except that Fox is not only just as bought and controlled by corporate interest as their major network competitors, they're rabidly biased. I'd call the others merely biased in comparison, but I don't really trust any of them as they all sold out to yellow journalism to retain their shrinking pool of viewers. Fox was the great forerunner here, the others are just trying to catch up in their race to the bottom.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 6:42am
    
    Re: Re: Your point #2 has always been a problem
    Oh I don't deny they are as controlled as anyone else, I am merely making the point that many, many people seem to think Fox is the only one who is biased or pushing a point of view. They somehow think the other news agencies are bastions of truth and light. BTW, the others are as rabidly biased as Fox.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ed C., 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Your point #2 has always been a problem
      BTW, the others are as rabidly biased as Fox.
      
      No, I stand by my point that the others are not as biased as Fox, they're just trying to catch up. Fox news started playing dirty tactics to, successfully, attract viewers. The others merely started imitating Fox's anti-professional style to hold on to their share of the shrinking pool of viewers who are even willing to watch TV news.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anonymouse, 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:21am
  
  Re: Your point #2 has always been a problem
  Seriously, this is not a site to preach your republican talking points, this is not a political site, it is a tech site and I am not interested in hearing how faux news is somehow even in the same ballpark as a real news channel, it is not and never will be.CNN,CBS,ABC,NBC,MSNBC are news channels, FOX news is a propaganda tool for the republican far right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - anonymouse, 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:25am
    
    Re: Re: Your point #2 has always been a problem
    Sorry just to add, yes the other news channels can be biased, but only in what they allow on the air, they do not create there own stories or spread there own rumors that they started just to attack there political proponents.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:58am
    
    Re: Re: Your point #2 has always been a problem
    Sorry, you must have this site confused with another as it often has political discussions on it. Also, you are one of the people I am referring to when I made the statement people think Fox is unique in the news industry. You are like people who watch wrestling. They will tell you they know its fake but when they watch it they get all excited and yell at the TV and the wrestlers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 5:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Your point #2 has always been a problem
      Please show us these "political" discussions.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:31am
  
  Re: Your point #2 has always been a problem
  " Just take Fox News as an example. They are the only news organization showing you the other side of a lot of issues."
  
  Actually, boy, they just show one side of a lot of issues.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MattP, 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:47am
    
    Re: Re: Your point #2 has always been a problem
    "Actually, boy, they just show one side of a lot of issues."
    
    Would that be "the other side"?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 9:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Your point #2 has always been a problem
      More like "The Far Side" if we're talking about Fox.
      
      Apologies to Gary Larson.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 8:18am
    
    Re: Re: Your point #2 has always been a problem
    For all I hate Faux News, I'm downmarking you for the insulting use of 'boy'. Even though I otherwise agree with you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lord of the Files, 11 Jan 2013 @ 2:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Your point #2 has always been a problem
      All this talk about reporting just "one side" is making me laugh. Reporting only one side of something news worthy, regardless of which side that is, shows very plainly just how biased a lot of these corporate owned news organizations really are.
      
      The right way to do it is to accurately convey the whole story to the public without any interjected opinions or embellishments, and let the public decide for themselves how they feel about it and take sides if they so wish.
      
      Nowadays, mostly due to vested corporate interests, the news is presented in a way that tells the public what to think instead of letting us make up our own minds. The easiest way to accomplish that is by reporting in a clearly biased manner only one side of the story. Some folks are able to see through this charade, but most aren't.
      
      It also doesn't help that the reporting of news in the 21st century went from being a serious, honorable profession, to one that is a joke thanks mostly to the entertainment format it's often presented in. Not only is it biased, it's been dumbed down to make sure the widest possible audience is influenced by whatever message it is you want them to believe. Anything counter to the corporate welfare isn't reported at all, copyright issue being an excellent example of this.
      
      The only way to get an accurate picture these days is to get your news from as many sources as possible before forming an opinion. Unfortunately we live in a relatively lazy society where doing this is just too much effort for most folks. Easier to just take what Fox News is saying at face value and believe it (just replace Fox with your favorite entertainment based news source).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 1:07pm
  
  Re: Your point #2 has always been a problem
  Maybe they are extreme sometimes, maybe even wrong, but can you honestly say that CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC aren't?
  
  Aren't extreme, or aren't wrong? Certainly the latter, not so sure about the former. Though I don't watch any of them so take anything I say about it with a grain of salt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 6:36am

TechDirt Who is your big daddy pulling the strings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 6:41am
  
  Re:
  The very same man who wrote this article.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:01am
  
  Re:
  Who's yours?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    Their big mommy pulls my strings, if you know what I mean . . .
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Colin, 11 Jan 2013 @ 9:48am
  
  Re:
  Big Search, duh. Didn't bob tell you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bob, 9 May 2019 @ 7:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    Big Search, duh. Didn't bob tell you?
    
    Dont put words into my mouth.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ed C., 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:01am

Aside from the appalling dissolution of journalistic integrity for the sake of corporate interest, I can't help but notice that the "features" Dish is being praised for--time and place shifting--are nothing but ridiculous kludges to transfer content from an archaic mode of distribution to what people expect of the modern era--digital storage and on-demand access. Of course, none of these kludges would be necessary if it weren't for companies like CBS burning money to shore up their legacy business model against the ever increasing demands of the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:26am
  
  Re:
  To quote my niece: "Well, duh!"
  
  Dish is trying to present the content the way that people want to consume it. Heaven Forbid!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 9:51am
  
  Re:
  Precisely. Had CBS offered their own content online years ago, people would be coming to their site to watch the shows letting CBS monetize it how they wish. Instead, they left open a gap for someone to come in and serve their customers. They could have made a service that would make Dish irrelevant. They still can. But they choose the court room instead.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 11:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm pretty sure the courtroom (or other government backroom) is where all the money is made anyway...
    
    At least if you're observing a rather astonishingly large portion of big business anyway.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ed C., 11 Jan 2013 @ 11:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    I totally agree. However, the ones who have been the most vocal against networks moving online are the local affiliates, because they get nothing out of it. They depend on local advertizing to meet their budgets, but the network's online portal cuts them out of the loop. Personally, I think the networks should let the locals setup their own steaming services, so they can both offload bandwidth from the network, and be free to run local ads or any other business models to cover cost. It would be cheaper than running a broadcast tower almost 24/7 and most people have a box of some kind connected to their TV anyway.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:10am

Oh, CNET...
...you used to be cool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:10am

I won't do dish because of the stupid contracts - sorry, but I will NOT enter into a contract for freakin' TV.

But in any event - if not for my DVR, I wouldn't watch TV at all. The 'hopper' is the only thing that's ever tempted me to look at dish; and if I had it, I'd watch a lot more TV.

But lengthy commercial breaks... are HISTORY for me, if I'm 'forced' to watch them - I won't watch at all, I'll go Netflix or just video game more.

Keep them short, to the point and I don't mind watching a few ads. Run them long and annoying - like AMC, SciFI, etc - and I won't watch your network at all, because it's just not worth watching the butchering of shows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:14am

the most important thing to 'the suits' is and always has been/will be to report on what they want reported on, not what they want everyone else to know about. it has never been in their best interests to tell the public about something that is awesome but not under their control. this behaviour is everywhere, breeds contempt from the public and makes them even more keen on trying/getting the equipment as soon as possible. the best route is to keep quiet, but they only do that when they are up to no good!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:16am

I wonder if this is less to do with the law suite and more to do with the hated technologies. The journal;ists were praising a device that records (we have to allow that), and skip adds (where we get our money), and remote viewing, (relatives ans friends anywhere in the world could be given access to American Television).
One box delivering all the things the suites object to no wonder the suites flipped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:22am

Nothing new here lol they're always coming up with new useless technologies. Well a new name for them at least rofl..

Why do I say it's useless?
1. These technologies should not been needed in the first place if the boneheads running the media would fucking embrace the internet.

2. The internet is a tool and one of the most powerful tools we have ever come to know of so far. It has redefined the world and how we all operate. It can be used for all kinds of shit like good shit,evil shit,stupid shit,important shit,funny shit, boring shit, fapping shit & shitty fapping if you're a real pervert, gaming shit, chatting shit, reviewing shit & shitty reviews, and even talking shit.

Alright #2 was most likely not needed lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Digitari, 11 Jan 2013 @ 9:50am
  
  Re:
  The internet is nothing more than an information "superhighway" and should be considered as such always...
  
  information is neutral, it's what you do with it that is what's most important
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
aidian, 11 Jan 2013 @ 8:24am

That distant thumping sound? It's Edward R Murrow spinning in his grave.
Wow. In the news business it's called the wall between church and state. This is Journalism 101. The advertising folks are allowed to shameless whore themselves however they want and get paid big bucks for doing it. In exchange they raise the money needed to allow us underpaid schlubs in the newsroom to cover the news without fear or favor. The founder of the Chicago Tribune famously had different stairways for news and advertising employees just so they wouldn't contaminate each other.

Now it's never been as perfectly clean as all that, but it is the rule. To say it's been tested by the near-implosion of the ad-supported media model is an understatement. But the idea that the business side would just flagrantly dictate editorial content is still so far beyond the pale that it leaves me at a loss for words. And I am never at a loss for words.

The charitable explanation for this is that CBS doesn't consider CNET to be a 'real' news operation. You know, cuz they just piddle around with that newfangled interweb thing. If they were real journalists they'd be on the television.

I just pray that that's the explanation. Because the other option is that this was the death of CBS News. I wonder what Ed Murrow would say about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ed C., 11 Jan 2013 @ 9:28am
  
  Re: That distant thumping sound? It's Edward R Murrow spinning in his grave.
  But the idea that the business side would just flagrantly dictate editorial content is still so far beyond the pale that it leaves me at a loss for words.
  
  I take it you don't watch Fox News, else you'd permanently mute.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - aidian, 11 Jan 2013 @ 10:13am
    
    Re: Re: That distant thumping sound? It's Edward R Murrow spinning in his grave.
    I take it you don't watch Fox News, else you'd permanently mute.
    
    No. Never have. Just judging from the clips I've seen and reliable reports from others, I don't really consider them a news organization. Every legit news person I've known who ever worked for them quit within a year or two.
    
    On the other hand, it's a brilliant play by Roger Ailes, creating a political action committee that turns a profit.
    
    One could raise questions about the editorial/business relationship in opinion journalism. One could ask where MSNBC fits on that spectrum. But none of that's relevant to CBS self-immolating its credibility.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 9:05am

The solely self interested cable and broadcasting cartels need to have their government established monopoly power abolished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 11 Jan 2013 @ 9:42am

Credibility
As with the MSM, you can never believe anything you read from CNET.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ed, 11 Jan 2013 @ 10:22am

Journalism?
From CNET:

"CNET shows you the exciting possibilities of how technology can enhance and enrich your life. We provide you with information, tools, and advice that help you decide what to buy and how to get the most out of your tech."

Where in here does it mention "journalism"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 1:27pm
  
  Re: Journalism?
  Where in here does it mention "journalism"?
  
  It can't be journalism unless it uses the word "journalism" to describe itself?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 10:24am

I may be alone in that I like the "structure" the TV schedule affords me in my life.
It places a responsibility on me to be where I need to be at a certain time that influences my approach to other appointments.

And I don't know about you, but I honestly enjoy the commercial breaks that accompany my nightly viewing!
No commercials would mean less tasty snacks during my favorite shows as well as providing the perfect pause in programming to make use of the "Original Hopper".

I am happy without the Dish's Hopper, its shifting time schedules or locations.
Really who wants one of those ugly dishes on their roof or to watch a show on your 4" phone anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 11:49am
  
  Re:
  I'm confused, you're happy with Dish's Hopper for time shifting and/or locations, but you also like the "structure" that is offered by a TV schedule.
  
  Even if the TV structure changed to be an always available on demand video streaming surface, I can't imagine any reason why they couldn't stick to making videos available at a specific schedule. They could even stagger release times to get the same effect as TV. The only difference would be that, after it was first broadcast, it would be available perpetually when, and where you wanted it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 1:38pm
  
  Re:
  If you have a Hopper, it records whatever you're watching. You want a snack? Just press Pause. Get your snack. Do something more important than watching TV. When you're ready, sit back down and resume watching. Now you've got some of the live TV buffered, and can skip commercials, if you want.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 3:07pm
  
  Re:
  It places a responsibility on me to be where I need to be at a certain time that influences my approach to other appointments.
  
  So you're reliant on TV programming in order to be able to manage the rest of your life? I think there's something askew there.
  
  No commercials would mean less tasty snacks during my favorite shows as well as providing the perfect pause in programming to make use of the "Original Hopper".
  
  It doesn't mean that for me. I just press "pause" anytime I want and go get snacks, etc.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PT (profile), 14 Jan 2013 @ 11:55am
  
  Re:
  I'm voting this as "funny", it's the best example of straight-faced sarcasm I've seen in a long time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sebastian, 12 Jan 2013 @ 6:52pm

CNET
CNET never had journalists with credibility or principles when it came to anything Apple from the day it started. Almost every article/review would be distorted and twisted, the Wintel fraternity was very, very strong.

Today the while the miasma of prejudice still lingers, it has improved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2013 @ 7:17am

Regardles of network, they all ignore stories equally........which is one of the bigger problems

Cant have backlash, if they dont report it, thankfully, the internet is the sweet thorn on that side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Albert Clive, 22 May 2013 @ 7:07am

Get expert car reviews with the help of car portal jitcar.com
With the help of car reviews you can decide best suitable car for you depending upon its price ,mileage, engine, reliability ,speed,fuel efficiency.Going through expert views you will get an idea about car mileage and mileage and you can easily make a comparison.Make comparison on the same category with different car manufacturers to have an idea about features of car.On jitcar.com you will be provided every information on car relating to its specification,pricing,launch,reviews.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Albert Clive, 22 May 2013 @ 7:07am

Get expert car reviews with the help of car portal jitcar.com
With the help of car reviews you can decide best suitable car for you depending upon its price ,mileage, engine, reliability ,speed,fuel efficiency.Going through expert views you will get an idea about car mileage and mileage and you can easily make a comparison.Make comparison on the same category with different car manufacturers to have an idea about features of car.On jitcar.com you will be provided every information on car relating to its specification,pricing,launch,reviews.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]