Mobile World Congress, the big trade show for mobile devices, just wrapped up. It's become sort of the go-to place for mobile device makers to announce their new products (even though two of the bigger Android developers, Samsung and HTC, decided to do their big announcements outside of MWC). For the tech press, it's the the "next big show" after CES. As you may remember, there was a bit of a kerfuffle as CNET's parent company, CBS broke down (with sledgehammers) that big wall between business and editorial by forcing CNET to take away the "Best of Show" award they had chosen to give Dish's latest DVR, all because CBS was suing Dish over the product. So, when I saw that CNET had awarded the Ubuntu Touch as "Best of Show" for MWC, all I could wonder was what products did CBS ban CNET from covering at MWC. Once tainted, it's difficult to trust their reviews ever again, which is a real shame.

The saga of CBS's braindead decision to interfere with CNET editorial and order reporters to take Dish's Hopper DVR out of the running for "best in show" (after they'd already given it the award) continues to have fallout. Beyond having one of its top reporters resign in protest, while having morale falling and, of course, handing Dish a perfect marketing opportunity, now it has pissed off the Consumer Electronics Association as well.

You see, CNET's "Best in Show" award wasn't just for CNET itself, but for the official CES show. Part of CNET's deal with CEA was that its picks for "Best of CES" were the official awards for CES. Until now. CEA boss Gary Shapiro first slammed CBS in an editorial, and then CEA followed that up by officially ending CNET's position as the official picker of the "Best in Show" for CES. In trying to save face, someone from CBS told The Verge (in the link above) that it "had already determined it would not attempt to partner with CES for the awards again." Yeah, sure.

Oh yeah. CES also has now officially named the Dish Hopper with Sling as "Best of Show" saying it's now the "co-winner" with the Razer Edge gaming tablet that CNET chose after CBS suits stepped in and decimated their editorial independence.

The fallout from CBS's ridiculously short-sighted interference with CNET's editorial process, concerning staffers awarding Dish's new DVR "best of show" at CES, continues to cause problems. Whle one of CNET's best reporters quit in protest, and Dish has turned the whole thing into a marketing opportunity, now any news article about any company that CBS is in a legal fight with has become suspect.

Note this recent article about the updated Aereo app. While it kicks off by saying that Aereo "just became a much more potent alternative to traditional cable TV" stuck right smack in the middle of the article is a big "disclosure":

Disclosure: CBS, the parent corporation of CNET, is currently in active litigation with Aereo as to the legality of its service. As a result of that conflict of interest, CNET cannot review that service going forward.

In other words, "HEY EVERY BODY, YOU CAN'T TRUST US TO REPORT FAIRLY ON THIS BECAUSE OUR CORPORATE OVERLORDS INTERFERE WITH EDITORIAL!" The whole thing is a joke. As Rob Pegoraro correctly noted, CNET's claims that "news" reporting won't be impacted because these bans just apply to "reviews" is simply wrong, wrong, wrong.

To say that there’s “actual news” and then reviews devoid of news value shows a basic misunderstanding of how journalism works.

Hard-news stories (like search-engine results!) are never entirely objective; people made value judgments in assigning them, choosing sources to quote, and giving those pieces their spot on the page or in the paper. Reviews are never entirely subjective and ought to cite objective defects such as slow performance, poor battery life, privacy risks or missing features.

And in the evolving and sometimes fumbling tech industry, assessing the hardware, software and services it serves up is an especially important part of the work of journalism. We need to suffer through these products ourselves–unless you’d prefer that we waited to see you find their problems, then reported the controversy.

Readers, in turn, don’t view news and reviews as distinct entities. If they start seeing one part of a site’s work subject to a corporate overlord’s remote control, they will read everything there skeptically. If they stick around at all.

Indeed. All that disclaimer does is remind people that CNET's coverage of any such topic is not to be trusted at all.

Update: And... things are apparently going downhill. According to reports and internal notes, reporters at CNET are pissed off and morale is falling. There was a meeting where some believed CBS was going to go back on its position, but the company did not. Reporters have been pushing back, but to no avail. The Romenesko link here includes an email from CNET reporter Declan McCullagh ticking off example after example of publications associated with other companies suing Aereo giving perfectly normal reviews of the product:

The Wall Street Journal’s Katie Boehret (who reviews products along with Walt Mossberg, as I’m sure you know) reviewed Aereo three months after the litigation began. Boehret concluded: “It has a thoughtful, clean user interface that works well on the iPad, where I tested it most.. If you’re a fan of TV and want a better way to watch it on the go, Aereo is a pleasure.” The WSJ is owned by News Corp., which is in active litigation with Aereo.

ABCNews.com published a review of Aereo this month. It said: “I’ve been trying out Aereo since September to record and watch all sorts of programs on Aereo — both highbrow shows such as ‘Downton Abbey’ and guilty-pleasure ones such as ‘Revenge…’ It makes cutting cable service tempting.” ABC News is owned by Walt Disney, which is in active litigation with Aereo.

The Chicago Tribune published a syndicated review of streaming services including Aereo, which said “the most exciting development might be a scrappy start-up called Aereo that lets you watch TV on any Web-connected device with a screen via a network of miniaturized antennas.” The newspaper is owned by the Tribune Company, which is in active litigation with Aereo.

It’s true that CBS has the right to set the editorial policies that CNET journalists must abide by. And it’s also true that this policy is prominently disclosed to our readers. But I’m not aware of other media companies that have enacted a similar policy.

This has the makings of quite the business school and journalism school case study...

Dish Network's Hopper DVR has certainly made more than a few broadcasters uncomfortable. One of them, CBS, decided last week that it would rather drag its own brand through the mud (CNET) and lose a reporter than give its current lawsuit target a bit of favorable press. CNET named the Hopper "Best in Show" at CES, only to have CBS unceremoniously strip Dish's DVR of the title, a decision CBS likely now regrets.

The Consumerist reports that Dish is taking a well-deserved swing at CBS, this time on its own website where its touts the Hopper being named Best in Show, along with a very noticeable asterisk.

The wording after the asterisk reads:

*What’s an asterisk doing in our award? CBS will go to any lengths to keep you from enjoying ad-skipping technology – even censoring its own writers and throwing out their decision to name Hopper ‘Best In Show.’ Your vote is the only one that really matters.

Dish is also doing its part to keep print journalism alive, taking out full page ads in several newspapers.
 
So, what did CBS gain from freezing its legal foe out of an award? Absolutely nothing.

The broadcaster was reportedly worried that having one of its subsidiaries give an award to a Hopper DVR would possibly hurt its case in court. However, now that it’s been revealed that the device did indeed win the award — even if will never receive the actual accolade — it has only turned into a public relations boost to Dish and the Hopper.

If people weren't already aware of the product, they certainly are now. And for many of those, technology that time-shifts AND skips ads is right up their alley. In addition, more people are publicly aware of the legal battle, which seems to boil down to the networks' insistence that customers watch every ad. Bad news all around, and CBS needs look no further than the still-smoking gun in its hand to explain all the brand-new holes in its foot.

Last week, in writing about CBS's unquestionably stupid decision to interfere with subsidiary CNET when it covered Dish's new DVR device, all because CBS is involved in litigation against Dish over a similar device, I came very close to calling out reporter Greg Sandoval by name. Sandoval is an excellent reporter for CNET who has covered the Dish case in particular, along with numerous other copyright issues. I don't always agree with him, but I think he's a tough and fair reporter, and it seemed like CBS's decision would put his objective reporting in doubt. Minutes before posting the article, I pulled the sentence that included Sandoval's name, because I thought it was, perhaps, unfair to put him on the spot like that, and that each employee of CNET had to make a personal decision on how to handle the situation.

Now it appears that Sandoval has made his decision, announcing that he's resigned from CNET due to this situation:

Hello all. Sad to report that I've resigned from CNET. I no longer have confidence that CBS is committed to editorial independence.

— Greg Sandoval (@sandoCNET) January 14, 2013

As he notes, he no longer has confidence that CBS is committed to editorial independence. In later tweets, he notes that CBS never interfered with his own reporting, but that the situation was unacceptable and would lead others to call into question his own independence -- especially considering that Sandoval reported on the Dish case and other similar cases.

CNET wasn't honest about what occurred regarding Dish is unacceptable to me. We are supposed to be truth tellers.

— Greg Sandoval (@sandoCNET) January 14, 2013

This all comes out after further information on the story reveals that CBS didn't just bar CNET staff from considering the new Dish device for the "Best of CES" award, but actually forced staffers to re-vote after the device had already won the award:

The Verge has now learned that the facts of the case are somewhat different than the story CNET and CBS had previously shared with the public. According to sources familiar with the matter, the Hopper was not simply an entrant in the Best of CES awards for the site: it was actually chosen as the winner of the "Best of Show" award (as voted by CNET's editorial staff).

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.

Apparently the move to strike the Hopper from the awards was passed down directly to Larkin from the office of CBS CEO, Leslie Moonves. Moonves has been one of the most outspoken opponents of the Hopper, telling investors at one point, "Hopper cannot exist... if Hopper exists, we will not be in business with (Dish)."

The Verge report also notes that CNET/CBS Interactive folks fought hard against the decision from the top folks at CBS, but in the end were told they had no choice. While it's not too surprising that folks from the old gatekeeper system, like Moonves, would be so clueless as to think that such a move would not massively backfire, it's still stunning to see that he never appeared to think through the consequences.

Kudos to Sandoval for standing up for his principles. As a top reporter in the space, I have no doubt he'll land on his feet -- hopefully at a publication with more credibility. Let's see if other CNET reporters follow suit.