I guess some will not be surprised
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/01/can-we-trust-cnet-again-after-ces-scandal/60976/
CNET became rubbish years ago, but many people already know that.
I cant believe anyone took their reviews or awards seriously
I read the article but I still didn't get what it's about ???!?
The judgemental tone in that article is ironic, considering the scandal The Atlantic has been involved in in recent days.
The best way to find out about a product and determine if it is for you is to read unbiased "small-time" user reports from a mixture of review sources. And determine very specifically if the product meets your needs with its features. If you can get matches between the two (needs/features) then it is good.
I rarely go by what big established sites say, they are bought-off and reviews are always tainted and biased in some way.
Over at Wilders, in post 8, Bill Bright suggests that Consumer Reports is an unbiased evaluator.
That has been my experience.
Never used them to evaluate computer technology, but they were very dependable for other things.
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=2172432
I read the article but I still didn't get what it's about ???!?
CBS owns CNet
CBS' business side (herein CBS) objects to the fact that "Hopper" makes the way CBS makes it's money, via selling advertisements, irrelevant by skipping them entirely, instead of allowing them to play at high-speed while fast forwarding (as other past/present recording mediums force viewers to do)
Thus CBS broke what should have been a glass wall between the business and New-arms and made CNET change their review/award to fit "corporate interests"
Ohh I hate all these non-descriptive buzzwords. "Hopper" is something that lets you skip tv commercials, it's still unclear whether this is hardware or software. Right?
And CBS doesn't like it that CNET awarded "Hopper" as a #1 product. But what is "New-arms", googling that term returns nothing but guns and weapons and terrorists.
This whole "scandal" once again illustrates why I hate things "corporate". Actually I don't dislike "corporate" stuff I disklike the interpretation of company rules by some of the un-educated cubicle dwellers in that corporate space.
Over at Wilders, in post 8, Bill Bright suggests that Consumer Reports is an unbiased evaluator.
[/code]
Consumer Reports has a YouTube page, they review practically everything. Albeit their car reviews are just too damned short!
"Hopper" is something that lets you skip tv commercials, it's still unclear whether this is hardware or software.
Dish Hopper is their newest whole home DVR, it's hardware. Although their website states it's "free" for subscribers they're full of it, because we've called at least 3 times and the cost of it is too high.
also dish hopper forces all primetime shows on all network channels (i.e. CBS) to record (whether you like/watch them or not) and it is only on those that you can skip commercials (I think it's a terrible device but that does not give right to news interference by corporate owners)
To draw comparison if Microsoft had forbid MSNBC from running stories about the Microsoft Anti-trust cases or from reviewing Apple/Google pages (note this example takes place before MS's divestment from NBC News) everyone would be up in arms
Maybe everyone would be up in arms if Microsoft had did something like that, however if such a thing were to happen (although it didn't) nobody would be surprised - it would kind of be like "they did what, oh that's so naughty, followed by one disgusted chuckle" and then the world would just keep turning as everyone would forget about it and complain about Updates Tuesday or some new annoying OS to learn.
So many big corporations do all sorts of unethical and even illegal things in the background but they often have the money to buy their way out of an issue.
right but the crux of the point is that a corporate owner should not be changing what amounts to The News to fit what they believe. We as a society (at least both the U.S. And U.K.) seem to have forgotten that this used to be how news departments were run. This is the same as Rupert Murdoch is/was doing in Britain and Australia (as well as minimally in the U.S.). When we let our news be controlled by third parties (political, sponsors or corporate-owners) it ceases to do it's informational job and becomes propaganda.
I may not agree with CNET's assessment of the Hopper (or even much of CNET since its sale) but if that is what they liked best they should have been able to express that without interference.
All large media outfits bend the truth & generate propaganda. You just don't catch'em that often.
generate propaganda.
Fox News.
What is this? Occupy Wall Street?
actually I refer more to BSkyB and the newspapers that come out of news corp. Note, my intention was not to play political theater and thus I wish to point out the "news influencing" occurs on all "sides" of the political spectrum (though not in the same amounts/ways).