Being a tech nerd, I came across this story that piqued my interest because it seems to address the nature of how much you can trust what you read in a reputable media publication. You can read the backstory for yourself, but for those that don’t have time, the short story is that Cnet, a reputable tech publication online published a list of the ten best products of the recent Consumer Electronics Show that included DishHopper. The product, while probably neat, isn’t important, but what’s important is that this product’s creator is being sued by CBS who insisted that Cnet remove that mention of DishHopper. CBS can do that because as owners of Cnet, they have the right to do so. It became a story because a few staff members left Cnet in a public huff.
The words from the opinion piece are a restatement of the core of this site:
In publishing, what you do not do is just as critical as what you do.
The post is a good explanation of why established news media feel so strongly about who owns the business and that they have the ‘independence’ to follow where the truth leads. The points they make are valid and it’s good they show how there’s more to the situation than what Cnet and CBS are letting their readers know. My take is that it’s nice as far as it goes, but that there’s a bigger picture than they realize. For tech reporting, that’s appropriate, but for the U.S. general media, there’s more to the story than what shows up in published/aired news reports.
