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

[ElNono]

"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!"

[boutons_deux]

All The News That Fits Corporate Profits.

[Wild Cobra]

That's what the independent press is for. CBS has the right not to say things, and other have the right to.

I hope you don't think that freedom of press means a must have full disclosure...

[boutons_deux]

there is no independent press. It's all corporatized, profit driven by ads from other corporations.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, but there are press organizations that have no connections to CBS.

My point is, there should be zero expectation for CBS to do something that could hurt themselves.

[boutons_deux]

OK, but there are press organizations that have no connections to CBS.

My point is, there should be zero expectation for CBS to do something that could hurt themselves.

all MSM is corporate and beholden to corporate ad money

[TeyshaBlue]

CNET will cowboy up and flex their editorial independence. This isnt the first time CBS pulled like this. Right now they are getting roasted by their peers.. Give em a few more days of that...

[ElNono]

My point is, there should be zero expectation for CBS to do something that could hurt themselves.

So you're saying corporate profit should trump editorial independence?

[DMX7]

there is no independent press. It's all corporatized, profit driven by ads from other corporations.

Even Consumer Reports is bull .

[Wild Cobra]

So you're saying corporate profit should trump editorial independence?

Please explain how you can twist what I said like that? No wonder we have silly arguments so often. You entirely fail to understand what I say.

Please read again my prior words before responding again.

[ElNono]

Please explain how you can twist what I said like that? No wonder we have silly arguments so often. You entirely fail to understand what I say.

Please read again my prior words before responding again.

I'm asking you a direct question. How could I 'twist' anything by asking you a question?. Should be simple to answer:

So you're saying corporate profit should trump editorial independence?

[Wild Cobra]

No, I never even implied that bull .

[DMX7]

You're saying CBS' profits should trump CBS owned affiliates independence.

[Wild Cobra]

You're saying CBS' profits should trump CBS owned affiliates independence.

Doess my opinion matter? Is it going to change the truth? Part of why the media outlets gobble up smaller ones is for control. To be editorially independent, they must be an independent en y. That's why I see this tasking of me over my previous words rather petty.

[ElNono]

[Wild Cobra]

I fail to see what is so amusing.

[ElNono]

^ no surprises there

[spursncowboys]

So you're saying corporate profit should trump editorial independence?

I agree that CBS is in the business to make money. It just will take credibility away from cnet. It also seems like a stupid move from CBS since they would profit more by maintaining CNet's brand.

[ElNono]

I agree that CBS is in the business to make money. It just will take credibility away from cnet. It also seems like a stupid move from CBS since they would profit more by maintaining CNet's brand.

But I think that's the big problem. It used to be that when you lose independence, you lose credibility and you lose appeal. Although everything seems upside down these days when it comes to that, when you look at the likes of MSNBC or Fox.

[spursncowboys]

But I think that's the big problem. It used to be that when you lose independence, you lose credibility and you lose appeal. Although everything seems upside down these days when it comes to that, when you look at the likes of MSNBC or Fox.

I completely agree. All the companies who lost their quality once they became a conglomerate piece. Sarah Lee, NYT (http://ants-and-grasshoppers.blogspo...ork-times.html), WSJ, CNBC, all IMO have lost so much of their credibility because their owners didn't realize their name wasn't able to be measured from their balance sheet.

[Wild Cobra]

^ no surprises there

And I see you are afraid to elaborate, knowing I can shoot it down.

[ElNono]

^ what's there to elaborate? the thread is there for everyone to read

[Wild Cobra]

^ what's there to elaborate? the thread is there for everyone to read

Again, I fail to see what's funny.

Are you losing your mind?

[ElNono]

I completely agree. All the companies who lost their quality once they became a conglomerate piece. Sarah Lee, NYT (http://ants-and-grasshoppers.blogspo...ork-times.html), WSJ, CNBC, all IMO have lost so much of their credibility because their owners didn't realize their name wasn't able to be measured from their balance sheet.

It's not all, IMO, and not all have to be outright dismissed (IMO again). Just some of them are outright open about it.

[ElNono]

Again, I fail to see what's funny.

Are you losing your mind?

My mind is fine. Read the thread again. You're kinda dumb, so I can see where getting defensive over your own comment and feeling threatened over a simple question just looks normal.

lol twisting