Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television News Technology

CES Ditches CNET After CBS Scandal Over Dish's Hopper 123

Posted by samzenpus from the take-that dept.
An anonymous reader writes in about the latest fallout from CNET's parent company, CBS banning Dish Network's hopper from reviews and award lists. "The Consumer Electronics Association has not only today bestowed its Best in Show title upon the same Dish Network product that started this whole mess in the first place — in the same release, the group says it will no longer work with CNET. CES has enjoyed a long and productive partnership with CNET and the Best of CES awards,' said Karen Chupka, the CEA's senior vice president for events and conferences. "However, we are concerned the new review policy will have a negative impact on our brand should we continue the awards relationship as currently constructed. We look forward to receiving new ideas to recognize the 'best of the best' products introduced at the International CES.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CES Ditches CNET After CBS Scandal Over Dish's Hopper More

CES Ditches CNET After CBS Scandal Over Dish's Hopper

Comments Filter:

  • Screw c|net (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrEricSir ( 398214 ) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @08:06PM (#42757411) Homepage

    The company had zero integrity before the Dish scandal happened. Why would anyone work with them in the first place? Weren't their scammy download site and payola-based game review sites damning enough already?

    • Feather that broke the camel's back.

    • Re:Screw c|net (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Nethemas the Great ( 909900 ) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @08:16PM (#42757461)
      C|Net? They're so 2002. Do lay-users even consider these folks relevant any more? I figured everyone thought of them as they do other DotCom bubble era companies like Geocities and Tripod.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Kinda like slashdot?

        • I'm starting to wonder that myself. There's far too much pandering to lay-users and at the expense of "News for Nerds". Maybe it's just me but it seems to be sliding ever more rapidly now that Dice is running things.

        • Re:Screw c|net (Score:5, Insightful)

          by EzInKy ( 115248 ) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @11:31PM (#42758363)

          Insightful point. Even on slashdot it's becomming harder and harder to find news for nerds that you might have missed elsewhere. I've always expected a few "infomercials" here, but recently it has become more and more blantent. And the war against anon posters here is totatally ridiculous. You can't speak free if you are worrying about having a job.

          • Most of the posts from Anonymous Cowards are crap. All you need to get a Slashdot account is a throwaway email address. Logging in lets people keep track of your reputation. It's annoying to have to slog through AC comments for the gems. Surely, under one of these squishy treats...

            • You should add a squishy treats reference to your sig.

              • You should add a squishy treats reference to your sig.

                I shall try to remember to keep it in consideration for the next time I feel like it needs a change. It really is one of the great moments in literature, but then, so is this.

      • You're telling me? I almost went to work for them in 2002... Fortunately they DotBombed (got eaten up by ZDNet and what was to be my position 'put on hold pending restructuring' 2 days before I was supposed to start), and my career path took a more circuitous route.

        Still... It was a very near thing. *shudder*

      • I'm pretty sure that Cnet doesn't enjoy the feelings of vague nostalgia that a lot of the other bubble-era companies do...

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Do lay-users even consider these folks relevant any more?

        Not to burst the Slashdot bubble, but yes, they are still very relevant to the "lay-user".
        - Top 5 HDTV
        - Top 5 Tablet
        - Top 5 Smartphone
        etc.

        Trying I'm feeling lucky on any of those. The average layer-user isn't going to spend hours scouring technical forums for detailed knowledge. They'll take the top site Google recommends and provide a decent summary in a 1-2 pages, and possibly look at Amazon for user reviews.

        I don't agree with the crap their overlords pulled, but give credit where credit is du

      • They're still one of the best places to go for things like TV reviews, for all of their faults.

        • Problem is, can you trust those reviews, especially now knowing that they don't have editorial independence?

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by dywolf ( 2673597 )

            Certainly, you can trust their reviews, if you have a brain in your head. A review about a product owned by CBS that they gush over is ovbiously suspicious. But really, the whole hopper thing is just because of a fued between Dish and the major networks. The overwhelming majority of CNETs reviews, being things like routers, printers, and TVs, are going to be unaffected. But its also good to remember that reviews sites are rarely totally unbiased (showing my age, but i remember PCGamer when they were still "

      • Cnet should not be relevant. It's one of the most biased tech sites out there.

      • Do lay-users even consider these folks relevant any more?

        CNET is one of the pre-eminent tech reporting sites, with a huge readership. If you have a tech company then your PR firm will work hard to get you on CNET because your product will get in front of a lot of eyeballs.

      • I have VERY rarely gone to the web site, but I think they produce a lot informative and entertaining video podcasts.. That I get for free and effectively no advertisement. (They used to do basically an ad for their other podcasts, and it was long enough to be annoying, but less than 30 seconds so a pain to FF through.) CNET Update and CNET News cover lots of areas, the "first look" ones cover products, and maybe they're paid to review certain products? I don't know, but it's one way I get an overview of

    • I was curious whether others thought this of them, or if I was just being judgmental and assuming my critical abilities were better than they are. And this had me thinking I didn't want to speak and make a fool of myself as well as perhaps lower a reputation unjustly.

      But CNET seems to be something easily gamed by products and companies, or perhaps that their reviewers are just automatically largely positive--maybe to get the products to review? Their reviews also seem very shallow.

      In particular it conce

  • Nice to see...

  • Wow, this is shocking. And I'm still reeling from the news about the Tour de France, I haven't decided what to do with my chest full of Lance Armstrong memorabilia.

    • Re:Product awards from a commercial site compromis (Score:4, Interesting)

      by penix1 ( 722987 ) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @09:03PM (#42757753) Homepage

      And I'm still reeling from the news about the Tour de France...

      I know this is way off topic and I will try and bring it back on in the end... No promises though...lol

      It always amuses me the kerfuffle raised when sports athletes get caught using performance enhancing drugs yet people don't say shit about beauty pageant contestants who have had cosmetic surgery just to win those titles.

      It all comes down to "follow the money". It is the same with this C/Net / CBS / Dish story. Follow the money. To CBS Dish is cutting off a revenue stream it sees as essential. Dish is seen by them as cheating the system just as much as Lance did. Dish OTOH doesn't see ads as essential since their service is subscription based. So much like Lance, they don't think they did anything wrong.

      How's that for trying to bring it back?

      • It works the same in every area of life. You get what you incentivize not what you profess to believe or support.

        It is why people cheat in college classes. Many are memory based classes and are designed to encourage cheating regardless of what the professors claim to support.

        Anywhere in society you see behavior other than what you want or think the system should have it is because you are giving an incentive for that behavior and no amount of rule changing is going to fix that.

        That is why we have can harsh

    • Do what Lance Armstrong did with his chest full of "Lance Armstrong memorabilia": Go out and win the Tour de France.

  • Good (Score:5, Funny)

    by irving47 ( 73147 ) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @08:17PM (#42757471) Homepage

    How do you like them apples, CBS?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by schwit1 ( 797399 )

      So true. Didn't CBS legal consider that by doing this they would be harming one of there own properties?

      Scorpion and the frog I guess.

  • This happens everywhere on all levels (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GodfatherofSoul ( 174979 ) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @08:37PM (#42757579)

    Business relationships color the news for all outlets; even NPR and PBS now have "sponsors." About 10 years ago I was watching I think CNBC when RFK Jr. started talking about poor environmental practices of GE, the parent company. The hosts actually shushed him and they immediately cut to commercial. When they came back, RFK Jr. was gone...

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by hduff ( 570443 )

      Business relationships color the news for all outlets; even NPR and PBS now have "sponsors."

      The local paper beagn to run a series of articles giving advice on how to negotiate the purchase of new and used cars. After the first installment ran, the local car dealers called the paper and threatened to withdraw all their advertising. No more articles about how to negotiate buying a car.

      Happens all the time, but mostly out of the public eye because those corporate guys know what kind of asshats it makes them look like.

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by webmistressrachel ( 903577 )

        Hi!

        I must be honest, the only reason I'm posting a reply is that I can't believe I'm seeing a Dogbert reference in someone's sig on Slashdot - wow, I am pleased! Yes, this is off-topic, and yes, they can Mod me down all they like, but that couldn't possibly compare with knowing there's a fellow reader of the Federation's rag on here! Hi from the GMP area! (adds Friend...)

        ps Mods, give me a break. Posted with no Karma Bonus, and this is a very specialised, very rare, meeting of minds happening here, complete

        • Dogbert is a character in the Dilbert comic.

          • Oh damn. Dogbert is also a regular character, in a cartoon sketch, in the Police Federation magazine (UK)! I honestly thought he was only Dogbert until you posted that...

            Yes, Dogbert is a plod in the cartoon. It's meant to be a tongue-in-cheek look at day-to-day police work. The quote above is definitely something he'd say!

            • I think the quote was from Dilbert, though. That is definitely something that Dogbert would say in Dilbert, as well. I kind of remember reading that somewhere and I don't read anything from the UK, except BBC News.

              • I'm agreeing that it could well be from Dilbert (which I don't remember seeing, or it being that interesting if I did see it in passing), it's just that I was under the impression that Dogbert, the irreverant cartoon voice of the Police Federation's magazine, was the only Dogbert, and since the quote would definitely be something he'd say (regarding the relevant topic - policing the UK) I just assumed it WAS our Dogbert...

                Please see my other note about how silly it was of me to ASS U ME, we can all learn fr

      • ...spends ages writing a reply, making lots of assumptions based on a sig... clicks submit... goes to read "slashdot.org/~hduff" page, facepalm!

        No reference whatsoever to the line of work referred toby me (and the sig), no topics or posts related to it, just a good quote in the sig, from the Police Federation's (UK) magazine for members of the Fed. Yep, a it's a union for frontline (below Inspecter rank) Police officers.

        Boy, did I get the wrong end of the, er, baton... (winds neck back in, reminds herself w

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Prune ( 557140 )

          Please tell me what devilish mixture of banned substances you injected in your veins before you set out to write these last two posts.

          Mods, I dare you to read the parent post without your heads exploding.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mekkab ( 133181 )
            now, to bring this all in line; Scott Adams should sue to silence the Federation's Dogbert (which 'Mericans have never heard of), which would spurn a cavalcade of 'news' articles, which would bring a UK police rag to prominence, which would have pedants coming out of the woodwork to claim how this was not the Striesand effect.

            Good times!

            /Yeah, this got a chuckle from me... schadenfreude is the schönste freude!

            • Wow, this is actually amazing, and it would be all my fault for jumping the er... baton on this one.

              Only one slight correction, and an observation of a further potential consequence.

              The Police Federation is a Union for officers of below Inspector rank ("rank and file") serving in UK Police Forces. The rag is a somewhat left-leaning, introspective commentary on life in the job, and how wider changes (only observable from the unique point of view of a rank-and-file constable) have a huge impact on the Common

      • But you have to wonder how much good will, especially in the Internet age, said paper would receive if they then publicized the fact that the local car dealers were trying to strongarm them. That right there might give them a nice boost in readership, which means the other companies advertising in their paper get more eyeballs. I think community and (digital) word of mouth are the new advertising currency.

      • Happens all the time, but mostly out of the public eye because those corporate guys know what kind of asshats it makes them look like.

        This is the kind of stuff I think about when people complain about adblock. Well, that and this [slashdot.org].

  • hopper? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    What is a dish's hopper?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      A multi-channel DVR with a commercial skip feature. I'm guessing the latter would be the part CBS hates so much.

  • CES Ditches CNET After CBS Scandal Over Dish (Score:5, Funny)

    by guttentag ( 313541 ) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @09:22PM (#42757829) Journal
    In other news, the Confederation of Companies that Rely on Acronyms starting with the letter C (C-CRAC) has revoked the CES's membership for siding with a "D" company that doesn't even understand the value of an acronym over its fellow "C" members. C-SPAN will be carrying live coverage of CNET's appeal.

  • In English, please!! (Score:3)

    by haruchai ( 17472 ) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @09:43PM (#42757931)

    I read the title 5 times and still have no fucking idea what it's about.

    • Re:In English, please!! (Score:4, Informative)

      by irving47 ( 73147 ) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @10:38PM (#42758197) Homepage

      In a nutshell, CNET liked the Dish Networks DVR (digital video recorder) and publicly said so.
      CBS (Used to stand for Columbia Broadcasting System) is suing Dish.
      CBS owns CNET, and said, you can't say nice things about someone we're suing!
      So now CES (Consumer Electronics Show) says CNET can no longer have input to decide the winner of the "Best of Show" award because they have a clear (mandated from their parent company) bias.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by haruchai ( 17472 )

      Thank you all for the explanations but the Slashdot editors could easily have done a better job.

    • The Consumer Electronics Show has ended their relationship with the review site c|net as a result of said site's elimination of a new product from award consideration. The product was removed from consideration on orders from c|net's corporate overlords at CBS (one of the "Big 3" American broadcasting corporations) either because CBS is currently involved in litigation over said product or, for the more cynical/realistic, because said product threatens CBS's bottom lime.

      To summarize the explanation of the

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @09:50PM (#42757969)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • I need sleep (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I need sleep because it looked like "The CIA surrounded CES since seeing CNET on CBS and served seven scientific sequestrations so somebody sensing a sacking stalls statistical scribes."

  • ...is nothing but a rag these days. Spouting pro-Apple gibberish all over the place and discounting other, more promising tech. Doesn't surprise me their lack of independence went so far as to fully censoring a product that 'the company' didn't like. It's ridiculous and no one should take this from a 'news' source. There's better sites out there anyways. Cnet writing is garbage.

  • The Dish Hopper is somewhat of a joke, It is a way to convert satellite broadcast into streaming - you see, it isn't a DVR at all but a device that requests something be saved for you at Dish Network HQ. Then, later you can have it streamed to you over the Internet. They claim the device is limited to 2000 hours, but this would appear to be an entirely arbitrary number. Since your "saved" content is likely shared with everyone else, why would there be any limit at all?

    Do you really think that they are s

    • Ummmmm, no, your completely wrong. It gets the transponder stream from the satellite and saves that. There is no streaming from an IP headend anywhere involved unless you are watching actual IPVOD movies that you have purchased. There is a 2TB hdd in the box, it is saved there

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close