Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2013 22:11 UTC
In the News "Apparently, executives at CBS learned that the Hopper would win 'Best of Show' prior to the announcement. Before the winner was unveiled, CBS Interactive News senior-vice president and General Manager Mark Larkin informed CNET's staff that the Hopper could not take the top award. The Hopper would have to be removed from consideration, and the editorial team had to re-vote and pick a new winner from the remaining choices. Sources say that Larkin was distraught while delivering the news - at one point in tears - as he told the team that he had fought CBS executives who had made the decision." And this is why media owned by larger media conglomerates (or by large companies in general) should always be treated with a certain amount of scepticism. This may be an open and shut case, but more subtle interference can be felt every single day as you read the media.
Thread beginning with comment 548777
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I don't like it, but it's understandable
by sukru on Mon 14th Jan 2013 22:40 UTC
sukru
Member since:
2006-11-19

As far as I know, they are in a legal battle with Dish about the hopper. While I do not like old media trying to force their way, this would cause trouble for their case if they allowed them to get the award.

(i.e.: Dish lawyers could easily use this to their advantage.)

I'm not saying I agree with them, I'm trying to point the legal reason behind it.

Edited 2013-01-14 22:40 UTC

Reply Score: 1

sgtrock Member since:
2011-05-13

And Dish won't be able to make some hay out of this anyway? As someone said on Slashdot when this story broke earlier today, "I wonder if CBS execs have ever heard of Streisand?" rofl

Reply Parent Score: 7

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I don't see how getting an award would suddenly make a device legal or illegal under the law.

Hopefully, CBS' legal argument isn't "Its a terrible product, and therefore illegal".

Now, I understand why they may not want their subsidiary to address the legality of the device. That would be completely understandable. And it sounds like CNET tried to do something that would acknowledge the questionable legality of the device while also disclosing that its parent was a part to legislation and its conflict of interest, but CBS wouldn't allow it. No award, no explanation of why. Its by far the easiest decision a lawyer can make, but a terrible business decision for a news company to make.

The ironic thing is that I never trusted cnet reviews, now I guess I'll have to trust them less, if possible.

Reply Parent Score: 9

ncafferkey Member since:
2006-09-15

And it sounds like CNET tried to do something that would acknowledge the questionable legality of the device while also disclosing that its parent was a part to legislation


I was going to say that you probably meant "party to litigation", but on second thoughts you're probably right.

Reply Parent Score: 1

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

I'm not saying I agree with them, I'm trying to point the legal reason behind it.


Ironically, by doing this, they *may* have just caused themselves another legal disaster:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/19332021673/cbss-censorsh...

Edit: left out the word "may", which I intended to be in my statement ;)

Edited 2013-01-15 19:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2