dslreports logo
 story category
CNET Not Reviewing Aereo Due to Faux-Ethical CBS Standard
Hey Everybody! Look at Our Integrity!

You'll recall that executives at CBS recently shot themselves in their very expensive loafers when they decided to prevent CBS-owned CNET from giving a CES best-of-show award to Dish's ad-skipping Hopper DVR. Not only did CBS ban CNET from giving the CES award, CBS decided to ban CNET from reviewing any Dish products -- ever. All the move did was to create free advertising for Hopper, while making CBS look like titans of idiocy.

Click for full size
CBS's excuse for the entire mess was that they couldn't ethically allow CNET to review a product they're currently in litigation over because -- well, just because.

That's of course an entirely made up, bizarre and artificial ethical standard. If every news outlet owned by a major corporation stopped mentioning any product with legal issues with a parent company, the news would likely only consist of Kardashian exposes and photos of cute kittens in stupid poses (ok, we're pretty close to that already).

Instead of admitting they were wrong, CBS executives now appear to be stuck having to carry their charade out through to its fruition, pretending that their policy of interfering with CNET's editorial policies isn't idiotic. As such, CNET's now proclaiming they're also not going to review OTA channel streaming service Aereo because of a similar CBS lawsuit. Amusingly, CNET can review products like Roku that now include Aereo apps, but not the Aereo functionality itself:

quote:
Disclosure: CBS, the parent corporation of CNET, is currently in active litigation with Aereo as to the legality of its service. As a result of that conflict of interest, CNET cannot review that service going forward.
It's not really a "conflict of interest" if CBS shouldn't be injecting itself into CNET's editorial policies in the first place. Again, all this manages to do is draw additional press coverage and interest to a product CBS is trying to destroy (aka Mike Masnick's Streisand Effect), while painting CBS executives as immense buffoons.

You have to think that ultimately somebody at CBS will realize that this has all been a mammoth public relations and brand disaster, but it's apparently going to take way too long, and a ton of ridiculous posturing before CBS realizes (or at least pretends to realize) the error of its ways.

Update: Or not.
view:
topics flat nest 

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Goodbye CNET

CBS has killed CNET as a source of reliable tech information. The slippery slope is here. It was a fast, steep drop.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: Goodbye CNET

I'd say it has been going on for some time. CNET has been excessively pro-Apple for a while now.

Mike
Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA

Mike to morbo

Mod

to morbo
CNET has killed CNET long before CBS. The horse is pulp now.

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru

MVM

Re: Goodbye CNET

said by Mike:

CNET has killed CNET long before CBS.

I was going to say just that. I personally thin CNET started it's downhill journey when it acquired ZDNet. Since about then I've never regarded anything that I've read from them as anything but a shill...a paid advertisement for whatever was being reviewed. And if something was a negative review, it was a paid shill for said product's competitors.
gamersglory
join:2012-11-11
Chapel Hill, NC

gamersglory to morbo

Member

to morbo
The only thing that would work is for CBS to spin-off CBS interactive
into it's own company

sk1939
Premium Member
join:2010-10-23
Frederick, MD

sk1939

Premium Member

What is it with companies....

...with giant sphere's as logos being run by immense buffoons who apparently are paid way too much.

elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO

elios

Member

Re: What is it with companies....

railroads and oil companies
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Bring on the Streisand Effect

I don't think Aereo will succeed - industry has way too much to lose from so many angles, and Diller's clever technical legal argument will be squashed like a bug, no matter how much merit the actual idea of competitive OTT/IPTV might have.

But CBS is only bringing attention to the plight of the "underdog" here, by trying to ignore them.
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

elefante72

Member

Re: Bring on the Streisand Effect

I worry too, however I remember back in the day when Netflix started sending DVD in the mail that people said that would never succeed. Last time I checked Hollywood Video and Blockbuster were single-handedly killed by Netflix...

Aereo's disruptive piece of technology isn't even spoken about, but the real killer is that they have the DVR (time shifting) in the cloud, and that is going to pillage all the box pushers in the next 5 years (sorry Arris), and at which time it won' t matter WHAT the content people say, the genie will be out of the bottle in the cloud. Boxee is trying the same thing, except they bent over and are taking it in the *** by the content owners. A sure way to die. They also continually screw their install base.

I also like their antenna thingy, but that is not a long term strategy anyways. I don't see free OTA making it through the next decade...

Bootes
Premium Member
join:2005-01-28
New York, NY

Bootes to elray

Premium Member

to elray
I see them making an agreement where Aereo starts paying fees per viewer similar to the cable companies. Then Aereo turns into the first internet cable company and starts picking up other cable channels as well, which I'm pretty sure is exactly what they would like to be.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Re: Bring on the Streisand Effect

said by Bootes:

I see them making an agreement where Aereo starts paying fees per viewer similar to the cable companies. Then Aereo turns into the first internet cable company and starts picking up other cable channels as well, which I'm pretty sure is exactly what they would like to be.

Again, i doubt they will succeed, as industry isn't likely to be caught snoozing, and Aereo doesn't have the 11-figure deep pockets necessary to bribe its way through network resistance.

But USDTV and Sezmi actually did manage to get a dozen cable channels to sell to them before they imploded, so it isn't impossible.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch to elray

Member

to elray
What Aereo needs to do is to start cutting deals with any programmers they can, be it niche cable/sat channels that can't get good carriage agreements from the big cable companies, foreign channels that want to enter the market, independent producers, and even smaller OTA TV stations that want carriage into a market. Tell these guys that, if they'll agree to waive carriage fees and allow Aereo to insert ads in any local ad slots the channels provide, Aereo will agree to make their service available for free to consumers for a specified amount of time, say maybe five years. Then either distribute via Roku or, if that doesn't work out, build their own similar streaming box.

Yes, caps will be an issue for heavy viewers, but that's something that the cable companies and telcos are going to have to defend someday, either in court or in the court of public opinion, and I suspect it's an issue they'd rather not have to air out in public. But, at any rate, if Aereo goes this route, and if it can build an even decent selection of programming, it will serve to really pull away the budget-conscious TV households.

At that point, the big programmers may have wished they'd left them along or gotten on the bandwagon.

Bill Neilson
Premium Member
join:2009-07-08
Alexandria, VA

Bill Neilson

Premium Member

I love CNet or specifically the writers

but this crap really needs to stop.

I am an attorney and the thinking of CBS and its men that blocking these reviews would in ANY WAY hurt their lawsuit is...mind-boggling to me.

CNet's rep has not just taken a hit but has just about destroyed it from even being looked upon as a truly legitimate news site.
Terabit
join:2008-12-19

Terabit

Member

Anti-trust

Why is there no anti-trust case against cable and traditional media.

Much like following the financial crisis, the GOP congress killed off any possible action (investigation) by government against a business. After all, they apparently do everything better, ethically, and can even self-regulate.

OneEye
join:2006-04-15
Peachtree City, GA

1 recommendation

OneEye

Member

Re: Anti-trust

Please give blame to all that should receive it.

Start with the crooked, conservative Supreme Court with several decisions giving corporations the same rights as those given to an individual.

Oh, well. You live and you die.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray to Terabit

Member

to Terabit
said by Terabit:

Why is there no anti-trust case against cable and traditional media.

Because there isn't even an inkling of a hint of a case.

Generally, content is cheaper than ever.

Just because we can't buy/rent the content in the manner, format, time, density and bundling we prefer, doesn't make for a conspiracy among the content owners - quite the opposite - they lose the potential sale.

Much as I'd like to see content sold dynamically, ala-carte, and I'm confident that such a system would result in huge revenue increases - people buy more when they can choose what they want, business prefers predictable revenues, just as consumers want consistent flat-rate billing, even when measured plans would save them lots of money.

So absent the second coming of Steve Jobs holding a World-Wide content sales summit, where all the players can see the light (more $$$$ for everyone, not just the newcomers), the established players are going to protect their investment, and they have every right to do so.

jjoshua
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ

jjoshua

Premium Member

Disclosure is all they need

CBS is worried that CNET can't objectively review something because litigation is taking place?

CNET just needs to disclose this to the reader and they can make up their own mind.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Disclosure is all they need

said by jjoshua:

CBS is worried that CNET can't objectively review something because litigation is taking place?

CNET just needs to disclose this to the reader and they can make up their own mind.

I disagree. The lawyers for those that CBS is suing would use the fact that a CBS subsidiary has supported them as a point in a civil lawsuit proceeding. And I evidently have much less confidence that a jury or even a judge would be impartial and not take those facts in to account.

amenite
The Soylent - It's People
Premium Member
join:2002-11-21
Ridgewood, NJ

amenite

Premium Member

Re: Disclosure is all they need

said by FFH5:

I disagree. The lawyers for those that CBS is suing would use the fact that a CBS subsidiary has supported them as a point in a civil lawsuit proceeding.
...

If that argument had been made prior to HopperGate, other things being equal it would have been easily refuted to judge, jury and public. As it stands now CBS has poisoned that well. Since everyone now knows that CBS management is actively involved in editorial actions, dictating terms to CNET and so forth, there is no counter to the argument. Congratulations CBS, done and done!
Os
join:2011-01-26
US

Os

Member

Cnet

should just go away permanently.

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

Cnet spin-off

CBS should just spin-off Cnet into an independent company. They'd sell more advertising without CBS poisoning their journalism.

The hopper sounds like a good idea but I'll never do business with Dish again based on a past experience.

I just wish the distribution companies were forced to split from content companies.

chip89
Premium Member
join:2012-07-05
Columbia Station, OH

chip89

Premium Member

Re: Cnet spin-off

Yes CBS should spin off Cent it would be a lot better that way.

MovieLover76
join:2009-09-11
Cherry Hill, NJ
(Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66

MovieLover76

Member

Someone please just kill off CNET

Their reviews are so scare on details, and their ratings are so arbitrary. I haven't looked at a CNET review in years because they are worthless to anyone with even a small amount of tech understanding. They live in the apple distortion field and now they are adding more and more biases thanks to their parent company.

This is why centralized media conglomerates are bad.

dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI

dnoyeB

Member

isAConflict()

If CNET was giving the Hopper a worst of show, then it might have looked like a conflict of interest. With that being said, it has to work both ways.

It is most definitely a conflict of interest because CBS says it is. Simply by them saying that, the reviewer can no longer be objective without having a backup job in the works.

It does not have to be a conflict, but CBS made it so.

BimmerE38FN
join:2002-09-15
Boise, ID

BimmerE38FN

Member

Tortious Interference

CBS did this in the portrayal movie "The Insider". Almost seems like there up to it again. I left CNET a while ago. Way to biased and never got other competitor HW reviews. They always seem to favor MS and Intel Platforms and HW over anyone else. People stopped watching CBS and CNET and go else where, might send a message to CBS Corp.
firedrakes
join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL

firedrakes

Member

Re: Tortious Interference

let them kept shooting themselves in the foot. sooner or later they will notice something
wahoospa
join:2006-03-23
Charleston, SC

wahoospa

Member

Strong Arm of CBS

I like CNET but if this is how it is run by the strong arm of the parent, CBS, then someone should make a competing website and let the news freely flow as it should.

MovieLover76
join:2009-09-11
Cherry Hill, NJ

MovieLover76

Member

Re: Strong Arm of CBS

There are tons of hardware review and tech commentary sites around other than CNET.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

I wonder how Lindsey Turrentine feels now

After the Hopper debacle, CNET's Editor-in-Chief, Lindsey Turrentine, posted an article trying to explain the whole thing and justifying why she didn't quit.

»news.cnet.com/8301-30677 ··· s-story/

In it, she said she would do everything in her power to see that such interference didn't happen again. Naturally, most of the commenters called BS on this and reminded her that she couldn't do a thing.

So, Lindsey, how do you feel now? You were either naive thinking that you could do a thing about it, or you were simply rationalizing why you didn't walk like you should have. Which was it? And I'll remind you that, if you ever were a journalist, you aren't one now. Whether you intended it or not, you're now simply a shill for CBS.

PP
@swbell.net

PP

Anon

Re: I wonder how Lindsey Turrentine feels now

I agree with you in theory. However, times are tough, and to walk away from a gig that pays well and allows her to be around, play with/evaluate, and report on technology (something I suspect she enjoys) is hard.

As the old saying goes those with the gold make the rules. In this case, big corps have us all by the short curlies. Sad that most of us have to sell a part of our soul to live comfortably.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: I wonder how Lindsey Turrentine feels now

I agree with you. In the short term, she made the right decision from a purely financial standpoint, but this assumes that CNET won't end up taking a hit for this. If it does, she may, at some point, find herself looking for employment, and people are going to remember where she was when this happened. Still, if she'd at least been honest and said that she stayed because she needed the money, I could respect that, but neither I nor anyone else bought that line about her not allowing this to happen again. It makes her look like either a terribly naive individual or a liar. Either way, her credibility is severely diminished.

She and the other CNET staff had a golden opportunity. If they'd walked and started up their own news site, they'd have grabbed many of CNET's visitors. And, if you think about it, a site's writers are its backbone. Servers and bandwidth are relatively cheap and widely available, but good, seasoned writers are harder to come by.

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
·StarLink

1 edit

SimbaSeven

Member

Looks like they took the "or not" site down.

»jimromenesko.com/2013/01 ··· sed-off/

All I'm getting is a 404.

EDIT: It's working, just have to go to the main site @ »jimromenesko.com/.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170

skeechan

Premium Member

Fixed the quote for them

said by Cnet :
Disclosure: CBS, the parent corporation of CNET, is currently in active litigation with Aereo as to the legality of its service. As a result of that conflict of interest, CNET cannot review that service going forward.
said by What CNet means :
Disclosure: CBS, the parent corporation of CNET, is currently in active litigation with Aereo as to the legality of its service. As a result of a conflict of interest, CNET cannot won't review that service going forward.
brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Tampa, FL

brianiscool

Member

CNET

I thought these guys went out of business years ago. I remember how bad their T.V. show was back in the days reviewing technology. Most people these days go to Amazon and Newegg for technology. Where people already write comments on the technology.

fightback
@comcast.net

fightback

Anon

Note to CBS/CNET

No problem here. I've already blocked the URL of ALL CBS owned or associated sites (including tv) and CNET. Just one more crappy channel I don't have to deal with on tv anyway.

Gotech
@comcast.net

Gotech

Anon

TechTV

TechTV. Nothing else needs to be said.