CNET Finally Reports On Its Own Fight With CBS Over Dish CES Award
from the a-bit-slow-out-the-gate dept
Realizing that the longer it did nothing, the worse it looked, CNET itself has finally reported on the events that transpired last week when corporate boss CBS stepped into the middle of their editorial process and sought to deny CNET the ability to choose the product they thought was the best of CES, the Dish DVR with Hopper and Sling.After the vote, we communicated the winners, as we always do, through normal channels. CNET immediately got down to the business of preparing for a massive stage show the following morning and preparing a press release.Of course, this is only coming out well after tons of other sources had reported on this -- and upstart competitor the Verge had already broken the story about how CBS didn't just tell CNET not to vote on the Dish device, but made them rescind the award that had already been chosen.
Later that evening, we were alerted to the legal conflict for CBS. All night and through to morning, my managers up and down CNET and I fought for two things: To honor the original vote and -- when it became clear that CBS Corporate did not accept that answer -- to issue a transparent statement regarding the original vote.
Ultimately, we were told that we must use the official statement and that we must follow corporate policy to defer all press requests to corporate communications.
The CNET post, by reviews Editor in Chief Lindsey Turrentine, suggests that most of the staff had no idea that CBS was in litigation with Dish and they were just doing what they were supposed to do. She also pushes back against the idea that she should resign:
We were in an impossible situation as journalists. The conflict of interest was real -- a legal case can impact the bottom line of our company and introduce the possibility of bias -- but the circumstances demanded more transparency and not hurried policy.The thing is, if she had quit, I would bet that many on her team would not have seen it as being abandoned, but actually as real leadership of someone supporting their editorial independence.
I could have quit right then. Maybe I should have. I decided that the best thing for my team was to get through the day as best we could and to fight the fight from the other side. Every single member of the CNET Reviews team is a dedicated, ethical, passionate technology critic. If I abandoned them now, I would be abandoning the ship.
She then goes on to insist that she'll fight to make sure this doesn't happen again -- but that seems difficult to believe since earlier in the existing story it suggests that she and others gave up the fight when CBS told them what they had to do:
If I had to face this dilemma again, I would not quit. I stand by my team and the years of work they have put into making CNET what it is. But I wish I could have overridden the decision not to reveal that Dish had won the vote in the trailer. For that I apologize to my staff and to CNET readers.Of course, the decision to quit is one that every individual has to make themselves. But completely taking it out of the realm of possibility gives CBS the easy power to do this again and again and again. She's signalling to CBS that it can continue to walk over CNET's editorial independence, and while the editor-in-chief may protest loudly, in the end, she won't leave. That's only going to add to the cloud over CNET's reviews going forward.
The one thing I want to clearly communicate to my team and to everyone at CNET and beyond is this: CNET does excellent work. Its family of writers is unbiased, focused, bright, and true. CNET will continue to do excellent good work. Of that I am certain. Going forward, I will do everything within my power to prevent this situation from happening again.
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: conflicts, editorial independence, journalism
Companies: cbs, cnet, dish
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Spot on
Indeed so. Ms. Turrentine's explanation makes me feel less, not more, confident in CNet. They may do good work, and CBS may only rarely cause distortion in their reporting -- but if I can't tell when that distortion is happening and when it isn't, then I have to assume that it's always happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spot on
And that thought process will happen for every article idea from every CNET writer. The article they eventually write might not been edited or changed by CBS, but the writer will have written it with that possibility in mind already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She's also signalling . . .
Whether or not you protest loudly internally doesn't matter. What matters is that we can trust you, CNET and CBS. I don't trust any of you.
CBS litigation should not be affected by CNET's award any more than it would be affected by a similar award from any other news source. CBS could claim editorial independence and that CNET's award should have no more weight in the litigation than an award from another source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't know...
Or you can stay, make excuses and lose your reputation.
CBS reputation is already ruined. Whether a journalist wants to stay or quit is their own individual choice. I'm not saying either choice is less valid. It's up to you what message you want to send.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't know...
Anyway she sold out completely already when she admitted that the bottomline of the business was what she was worried about. If you are so concerned about your companys economy that you are prepared to blatantly censor yourself, you are not a good Editor in Chief: You are acting like an accountant or vice director, which is exactly what you cannot do when handling journalistic tasks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CNET = CBS mouthpiece
Irrelevant, since all of their "good work" is filtered through the CBS suits. If CBS has final say on what CNET publishes, then all you're really getting is CBS' opinion. Anything that doesn't match CBS' agenda will never see the light of day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CNET = CBS mouthpiece
Fuck you, CNET.
Fuck you, CBS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too little, too late
Just as important to consider, is that though this time the split between what the reporters had written, vs. what the suits wanted written has been fairly public, given this I can't see how anyone could avoid wondering how many of their articles in the future will have to be 'corporate approved', removing any trace of an unbiased opinion or reporting.
In the end I'd have to agree with the final paragraph of the article here, her decision to stay has basically told CBS that they can do what they want, and all they'll get is a little push-back and complaining before the 'news' team caves and types out what they're told to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too little, too late
Greg Sandoval, who quit over this, has his reputation as someone ethical who won't compromise for his corporate masters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too little, too late
If she felt so strongly, why didn't she just say they wouldn't award a "Best of Show" this year and defer all questions to CBS Communications?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Too little, too late
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All Over the Net
Lucky me I don't have to watch CBS unless there's a football game on. Who's got the Superbowl this year anyhow? Please, not CBS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All Over the Net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All Over the Net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the public has learned is that the CNET vote doesn't mean crap because CBS pulls the final strings saying all is good or not.
What it means is the usual, it's rigged when it doesn't suit the corporate home office. Sorry that's not the way you maintain any sort of believability. To have this controversy go on this long before answering just says holding the job is more important than credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're done...
....Not anymore....
...You also stood by and let your corporate masters and the minutes of thought they put into censoring you destroy those years of work....
CNET is now and forever a tarnished technological news source. How are we supposed to know what news has been filtered by their powerful owners?
The best option, and really only option is to abandon them as a reliable news source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Integrity = no job
Sometimes people have to compromise their work ethics to preserve the more important parts of their lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Integrity = no job
Before I got to this comment I was mulling over all the pesky caveats like food, rent, kids and so on.
It doesn't seem to me like she and the staff simply folded like lawn chairs and capitulated.
While I would have perhaps quit, I would have nothing substantive to lose,only things to gain from the ensuing shit storm.
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Integrity = no job
And those people have compromised their ethics and need to be treated accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Integrity = no job
Instead she's drawing attention to her lack of backbone (whatever her good reasons), rather than just trying to let it all blow over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Integrity = no job
Exactly what is more important to a reporter than their ethics?
She took the easy path, keeping the job, and now everyone knows the only thing she can be trusted to do is kiss corporate ass!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Integrity = no job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
side note
Even though I guess they didn't officially win the award, I doubt anybody at Dish is disappointed to see all the coverage of this story this week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Integrity must mean something different at CNET
If you have integrity, it was not an "impossible situation" at all. The decision should have been crystal clear. No matter how loud you declare:
Going forward, I will do everything within my power to prevent this situation from happening again. - It is just an empty gesture.
"I decided that the best thing for my team was to get through the day as best we could and to fight the fight from the other side." - In reality: I decided that the best thing for my team was to get through the day as best we could, shut our mouths, and keep our jobs. Integrity sold, check.
It is a hard decision to leave a job due to ethics. I mean we all have bills to pay, but if you have to constantly second guess if what you are doing will get squashed or worse, get changed by upper management, well that cant be a very healthy environment either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...... ok reality check
Posting the required verbiage one's employer has foisted off on you is not some sign of weakness or moral turpitude. I am a person who has, repeatedly, left jobs because I felt they were morally questionable, from my early days at a telemarketing center to my most recent foray into real estate.
Pretty much every job on this earth requires SOME level of ethical compromise though, if you think about it long and hard enough.
The real criticism here should be of CBS for bullying, not against the victims of their bullying. CBS has basically just ruined CNET's brand. CBS can dump CNET, but CNET can't dump themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...... ok reality check
Darn I wish there was an edit feature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...... ok reality check
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In all fairness....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is more damning is Turrentine's apparent agreement that the orders from the top were kinda understandable because "the conflict of interest was real -- a legal case can impact the bottom line of our company". A lot of things could impact the bottom line, including, for example, recommending a competitor's product or exposing corporate fraud. That such garbage come out of the maws of the suits is not surprising. That the staff accepts it is unforgivable. At the very least, if they were really upset with the order, they could have published the forbidden content anyway and see what happened. This would have given them a shot at keeping their jobs and their integrity intact.
It's sickening though that the focus of so muc blame is on the staff instead of the real scum, CBS top management, in particular CEO, Leslie Moonves. He and his "management" team have no business pretending to be in the news business. In a just world he would be out in the street and CBS would lose its license for pretending to be a news organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You've got to stand for something (or your fall for anything).
"Now Daddy didn't like trouble, but if it came along
Everyone that knew him knew which side that he'd be on
He never was a hero, or this county's shinin' light
But you could always find him standing up
For what he thought was right
He'd say you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything
You've got to be your own man not a puppet on a string
Never compromise what's right and uphold your family name
You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not self-righteous to call invertebrates 'spineless'
I recently dealt with this in a large company where I was one of very few people to stick my neck out over an unethical policy. I found, by talking to my coworkers, that most just hadn't even thought about it much. Once they did think about it, they all agreed that the situation stunk to high heaven. Yet despite this, they each had various reasons they wouldn't quit, disobey, publicly protest, demand concessions, or even voice their concerns to higher-ups:
1. Inertia, complacency, overall job satisfaction, desire to maintain good relations with coworkers, realization that it'll blow over and soon be forgotten. "Yeah, I was ready to quit or raise a big stink about this yesterday, but I thought about it and you know, it's just one little thing wrong in an otherwise good job." (This goes on for years.)
2. Deference to authority, confidence in superiors, fear of reprimand, fear of not being promoted or getting a raise, fear of being the only one to disagree or take greater action than others, fear of peers being negatively affected. Aside from not wanting to rock the boat, people feel it can be counterproductive to doubt the boss or consider options other than what's offered from above. "Yes, it's unethical, but surely they're doing what's good for the company, what's good for all of us in the long run; they rely on our confidence in them. Where do I sign?"
3. Fear of the unknown: not having another job lined up, no confidence of landing on one's feet, reluctance to belt-tighten, fear of being seen as a boat-rocker when looking for a new job, embarrassment of facing friends & family with even temporary abandonment of the dogged pursuit of life "success" as measured by career/income/property. It's astonishing how many conflict-averse adults allow their parents to dictate their priorities, or who equate downsizing with personal failure. "But I can't give up the McMansion yet; I'll lose money on it. Besides, I have kids!"
4. Fear of legal repercussions. Many have signed a no-compete agreement, so they feel like they can't start up or join another company and carry on like nothing happened, and don't consider talking to a lawyer about what the risks actually are. Some also worry that public protest carries a risk of personal liability for a perceived negative impact on their publicly traded company's stock price. "What if they sue me?"
5. Prioritization of personal ethics. Many are paralyzed by moral conflicts, or just feel it is more important to follow through with one's personal and contractual commitments than to stand up for any other rights or moral courses of action that arise later. Faced with the choice, they'll continue following the rules and letting the captains steer the ship. "Yes, it's starting to look like this relationship isn't working out so well, but I made my bed and now I have to lie in it."
6. Mercenary tendencies. Some are just in it for the money. They don't care about the ethics of the situation, they just want the paycheck. Maybe they felt that way when they signed on, or maybe they're just beaten-down and numb from all the corporate B.S. "Let someone else fight the good fight. For me, it's just a job."
7. Blissful ignorance, resignation to the fact that every job has some kind of distasteful aspects, or just no room in one's life for work-related drama. Some avoid or ignore anything that upsetting. "I just can't worry about this right now. Besides, it's just work. I've seen worse. I'm on the path of least resistance."
8. Gratitude. "The economy is down; I'm lucky/glad/blessed to have a job."
9. Organizing as a group and taking one's concerns to management is one step removed from forming a union, which many people oppose for political reasons, and which puts management squarely on the defensive. It may well create a hostile, adversarial environment for the everyone. "I don't want to screw things up for me and my coworkers. Besides, unions are bad for business, bad for America."
Every one of these reasons can reasonably be interpreted as a manifestation of spinelessness. Just because there's a bunch of them doesn't change that. It is what it is. If that's too harsh a name for it, how about "fear-based decision-making".
If you're spineless, just admit it. And if you begrudge being derided for it, then either grow a thicker skin, or grow some balls and do something to improve your situation. Calling your accuser "self-righteous" is just ad hominem.
(FWIW, I did stick it out in gracious/mercenary mode for a while, but quit before getting something else lined up, and haven't regretted it one bit. It required some adjustments, but I have other sources of income and am doing fine.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not self-righteous to call invertebrates 'spineless'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The idiocy is...
This amounts to "I will ensure that all pistons keep firing in the engine, regardless of whether the carburetor fails." Car still don't go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A spokesman for CBS, which also owns such marquee journalism properties as CBS News and 60 Minutes, declined to comment on how a similar situation might be handled if it occurred at its other news properties.
"In terms of covering actual news, CNET maintains 100 percent editorial independence, and always will," CBS said in a prepared statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She didn't have to quit
She could have just refused to accept the order and publish the winner anyway. That would be her fighting for her team as she says (after the fact) is important while still keeping her journalistic integrity.
Sure the suits could have fired her but that would have been even better for her staff, as they would be forced to accept that CNET has been comprised and start looking for other work.
If her other skills were at all decent I am guessing that she would find work elsewhere as she was able to show she had integrity. At this point she is tainted.
She states
... but what she didn't realize then is she WAS abandoning them on journalist integrity level as soon as she was more worried about the bottom line.
I guess it easy to play Monday morning QB if it isn't your hide on the line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you don't want to show bias then just report on every single item: this is what it is and this it what it does and nothing more. Inform the audience and let them make up their own mind, that's being unbiased - saying something is the best and giving out a "gold star" - that's showing bias.
The editor's lame excuse for "standing ground" is one of the most pathetic attempts at sounding sincere I've seen in quite some time. If she had any integrity she would have just published the results anyway, handed out the rewards, and FACED THE CONSEQUENCES - that's what integrity is. Backing down, tucking tail, and then trying to be honorable after-the-fact is just plain cowardly. Just admit you want to keep your job, it's plainly obvious and there's nothing wrong with that - income is more important than giving out pats on the back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Future of CNET's Conflict-of-Interest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Future of CNET's Conflict-of-Interest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
could never trust them again
What was that editor thinking, she should start training on a different job, as no one will ever hire her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe it's time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why does CNET get to choose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
C|NET is now Officially CBS's B*tch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]