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 548785
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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