CNET Insiders Say Tech Outlet Softened Coverage To Please Advertisers
from the I'm-sorry-I-can't-do-that,-Dave dept
It hasn’t been a great few weeks for CNET.
If you hadn’t seen, the company was busted using AI to generate dozens of stories without informing readers or the public. Despite newfound hype, the AI wasn’t particularly good at its job, creating content that had persistent issues with both accuracy and plagiarism. Of the 77 articles published, more than half had significant errors (Futurism’s Jon Christian’s coverage of the mess is essential reading).
It wasn’t particularly surprising if you’ve watched the outlet’s coverage over the last decade become increasingly inundated with affiliate blogspam and often toothless, corporate friendly stenography of company press releases. And who could forget that time former CNET owner CBS blocked the company from doling out a CES award to Dish Network as part of a petty legal dispute over cable box ad skipping.
A major reason for CNET’s more recent problems are thanks to its owner, private equity firm Red Ventures, which acquired CNET from CBS in 2020. Recently leaked internal communications and employee accounts from inside CNET indicate that Red Ventures was so excited by AI’s ability to generate content at scale cheaply, it didn’t really care if the resulting content was rife with inaccuracies:
“They were well aware of the fact that the AI plagiarized and hallucinated,” a person who attended the meeting recalls. (Artificial intelligence tools have a tendency to insert false information into responses, which are sometimes called “hallucinations.”) “One of the things they were focused on when they developed the program was reducing plagiarism. I suppose that didn’t work out so well.”
Amusingly, the whole point of doing this, lower costs, never materialized because editing the resulting AI content was more time consuming that editing human work:
The AI system was always faster than human writers at generating stories, the company found, but editing its work took much longer than editing a real staffer’s copy. The tool also had a tendency to write sentences that sounded plausible but were incorrect, and it was known to plagiarize language from the sources it was trained on.
But AI aside, insiders say the environment created by Red Ventures is one in which affiliate blogspam style coverage takes precedent, and the company is all too happy to obliterate editorial firewalls and soften coverage if it makes advertisers happy:
Multiple former employees told The Verge of instances where CNET staff felt pressured to change stories and reviews due to Red Ventures’ business dealings with advertisers. The forceful pivot toward Red Ventures’ affiliate marketing-driven business model — which generates revenue when readers click links to sign up for credit cards or buy products — began clearly influencing editorial strategy, with former employees saying that revenue objectives have begun creeping into editorial conversations.
Reporters, including on-camera video hosts, have been asked to create sponsored content, making staff uncomfortable with the increasingly blurry lines between editorial and sales. One person told The Verge that they were made aware of Red Ventures’ business relationship with a company whose product they were covering and that they felt pressured to change a review to be more favorable.
U.S. journalism is, if you hadn’t noticed, already in crisis. There’s a decided lack of creative new financing ideas. There are also endless layoffs, and homogenized, feckless content that’s increasingly afraid of challenging sources, advertisers, or event sponsors. Twice a year the entire United States tech press turns their front pages into glorified blogspam affiliates for Amazon, and nobody, in any position of editorial authority, ever seems to think that’s in any way gross, unethical, or problematic.
AI will likely help human beings in multitude of ways we can’t even begin to understand. But it’s also going to supercharge existing problems (like propaganda) in similarly complicated and unforeseen ways, whether that’s making it easier for corporations to run sleazy astroturf lobbying campaigns, or inexpensively slather the Internet with feckless clickbait and blogspam at unprecedented scale.
Filed Under: advertising, ai, artificial intelligence, blogspam, chatgpt, cnet, journalism, media, plagiarism, reporting
Companies: cnet, red ventures


Comments on “CNET Insiders Say Tech Outlet Softened Coverage To Please Advertisers”
Old school C programmer
I always worked in C, and assembler. So, I never got any good feelings about AI generated anythings. My primary complaint is you cannot prove the AI got it right. Only that it “appears” right enough. The linked article was enlightening. Basic dumb mistakes and fed to the people that would be most hurt by them.
Add in the copyright, IP, and privacy concerns – why is this even a thing? I mean, the CNET issues are cute/funny. As in, “how could it get it this wrong” funny. But using the AI to replace entry level journalists only to not get the savings because of increased editing.
Sucks for entry journalists but could be a boon for entry to mid level editors. Is that a good thing, or not?
Re:
“… could be a boon for entry to mid level editors”
Guess what’s next on their list to replace with AI? They think it’s mostly just spelling/grammar checking right … that’s perfect for a rules based AI … should be even easier to implement!
This is New?
“…creating content that had persistent issues with both …”
I always thought CNET reporting was crap. They review “tech”, most reviews are for things they know little about.
Who's a surprised?
CNet hasn’t been trustworthy in years. Anyone who lays attention could tell me you that. Now we know why.
CNET is right up there with 60 Minutes in the integrity conversation.
We’ll replace those expensive reporters with AI and once its fine tuned we’ll sell the tech to other techbros and we’ll be rich gods!!!
This doesn’t surprise me at all. Google searches are so stuffed with useless AI blogspam garbage that you can’t find much of anything anymore no matter how many pluses or minuses you put in your search (unless you’re looking for a product of course!). It’s a popular meme that in order to find any relevant information you have to append “Reddit” to your search and it’s unfortunately as true as it is dangerous.
Growing up, I was warned that one day I’d be replaced by a machine if I didn’t get myself a degree. I don’t think my teachers counted on attempts to replace EVERYTHING and EVERYONE with AI, and especially not during a recession. Right now their attempts are funny, but I fear it won’t be long before you can’t tell anymore. What will we do then? I have to laugh or I’ll cry.
Re: actually make something
The other alternative is to actually make something. I do not anticipate that a computer is going to replace those guys putting up buildings, nor is it going to replace highway crews. Neither is it going to do a good job of replacing live entertainment.
Fresh local food seems to be much in demand. Preparation of that stuff into meals is also a human-intensive operation.
A CNC machine will have a hard time making geechee baskets or other hand-crafted stuff, though that is kind of a small, special market.
If I were still in the computer business, I would say that some stuff is going to always require humans, but there a degree may help. Think of it as an entry ticket, anyway, even though the lack of a degree may not stop you from writing perfectly fine embedded machine code.
“no matter how many pluses or minuses you put in your search”
Google changed their search syntax years ago:
https://www.wired.com/2011/10/google-kills-its-other-plus-and-how-to-bring-it-back/
So, if you’re still adding plusses to your search, you’re doing it wrong.
AI is Overhyped
I get that maybe, “someday”, AI will become good enough to take over things like writing and whatnot, but it is nowhere near where it needs to be to get there. I’d wager we are years away from that.
When I saw all the handwringing about AI taking over art, I gave one of those tools a spin just for fun. The results it spit out was garbage. Could it be that I didn’t write instructions that the AI could fully comprehend? Maybe. At the same time, while it did produce some interesting results for some people, it didn’t really erase the need for human artists overnight.
There was some hype over AI potentially being able to write songs for mainstream pop music. That… never really panned out from what I could tell.
Then ChatGPT came around and it was supposed to take over writing of everything. Whether it was writing song lyrics, writing teacher lesson plans, or writing news articles, ChatGPT was supposed to make journalists jobs disappear overnight because why pay for human journalist when the AI could write it? Well, you see why just in the first paragraph of this article.
Now, don’t get me wrong, AI does have some interesting applications that seem to make sense. If I remember right, Watson of Jeopardy fame was supposed to be able to assist doctors in diagnosing symptoms for medical purposes. Alpha Zero really opened up the chess world with some very novel strategies. Alpha Go Zero made the world of Go really exciting. What’s more is that AI seems to be inching closer to regularly besting human players in Poker. So, yes, there has been some impressive applications in the world of AI.
At the same time, I can’t help but think that a huge number of these AI projects are over promising and destined to under deliver. If wrestling with incomplete knowledge in Poker is still a tough nut to crack, that is nothing compared to the world of human nuance, reacting to the environments humans live in today, and acting and reacting to developments both expected and unexpected is going to be substantially more difficult. In the news world, there isn’t just another 50 unknown cards and chips to contend with (Texas Hold ’em). There’s market fluctuations, legislative developments, politics, the court system, international relationships between countries, and a whole pile of other variables that takes years to even have a general understanding. The power of AI doesn’t really stand much of a chance in navigating everything like that today – at least at a sufficient level of accuracy expected from those pesky finicky human beings anyway.
It’s precisely those reasons that when I saw reports saying that journalism and writing will be taken over by AI soon, I laughed. My job as someone who writes news independently is secure for years at minimum just because of the many variables I am aware of to churn out something half way informative. Could this change down the road? Maybe. Is it happening today? Don’t make me laugh.
Re:
Probably correct. The thing is, it will eventually evolve from an interesting toy to good enough to replace your job. And that progress may not be linear at all, so it may seem to be quite sudden, and take a lot of people by surprise. I just hope we have a plan in place to deal with the majority of people quickly becoming unemployable, but I’m not optimistic.
Resting on laurels
It’s sad. CNET used to be my go-to site for tech news and product info. When it first started it provided decent quality news of the rapidly developing online world and the equally rapidly evolving technology used to access it. It was a shining example of what the World Wide Web could be used for. But that was late in the last century – last millennium, for that matter – when I was using Netscape as my browser.
AI vs old fashioned crowd sourcing
Many years ago before ZDNet was acquired by CNet and CNet acquired by Red Ventures, they actually solicited software reviews from active readers.
Independent contributors would get a software program for a month trial and write a personal review of it. There was a template to follow, a prescribed scoring system; and ZDNet would edit the article for final publication.
There was a small payment per article, and the independent contributor could easily do it as a moonlighting gig.
Such attempts to minimize content generation costs with AI or other automation forget that the product actually driving revenue is quality writing.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The buzzwords are cultureless computing, word spoofing, language diarrhea and 3rd world ad fodder.
They can only mix with illiterates. Plastic emotions have no future.
Re: Wait...
Was this comment written by AI? “Plastic emotions have no future” has Inspirobot written all over it.
Re: Re:
Yes, and the dude doing it is so bad at prompting it, or it has been trained on extremely limited material, so it produces essentially the same garbage every time – the words “buzzwords, culture, 1st world, 3rd world, illiterates internet 2.0, network” and some others always crop up in the spam-posts which makes it easy to detect and flag.
Yeah, CNET, or rather, C|NET Networks as a whole, was already a crapfest (at least top-down) since just before CBS bought them (thanks, clever board members!) and definitely since CBS. i didn’t even know they were sold to and run by some new and worse outfit. i have seen a reason to go back to Tech Republic, CNET, Download, or ZDNet in years. Sadly and lamentably.
Best Physiotherapist in Dwarka, Delhi
I always thought CNET reporting was crap. They review “tech”, most reviews are for things they know little about.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Thanks for sharing. It is very helpful for me and also informative for all those users who will come to read.
AI "journalism"
AI is not, and can never be, journalism. It can’t pick up a phone and call a source. It can’t incorporate the latest ideas from original sources. It can’t add to the body of knowledge; it can only spin pre-existing data.
In short, AI can’t educate, it can only regurgitate.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic. I completely agree with your perspective and think that it is important to consider all sides of an issue before coming to a conclusion. Your insight and analysis really helped me to better understand the situation and I appreciate your well-written and thought-provoking comment. Keep up the great work!
https://www.alawncare.net/
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic. I completely agree with your perspective and think that it is important to consider all sides of an issue before coming to a conclusion. Your insight and analysis really helped me to better understand the situation and I appreciate your well-written and thought-provoking comment. Keep up the great work!
https://www.odpavingmasonry.com/
Best Physiotherapist in Dwarka
you Write nice Blog I also Share this Blog to all my Frainds