@mlarrabee said:
It's probably for the best. At least this way their negative relationship can't negatively affect coverage and exposure. It's the negative counterpart to Giant Bomb refusing to review Bastion due to their relationship with the developer.
It's pretty childish, and reminds one that giant corporations really are run by one or two average people who give in to grudges when they shouldn't.
In absolutely no way whatsoever is this like Giant Bomb not reviewing Bastion. It's not even comparable. The whole point of this story is that the editorial staff of CNET is being bossed around by the corporate bosses, being told that they ARE NOT ALLOWED to judge products based on their merits and write reviews that server their reader's best interests. There is a whole host of reasons why this is upsetting, but one of the biggest problems is that it totally undermines CNET editorial credibility. How can a reader possibly trust that their "Best of CES" awards really goes to the best product at CES if one of the finalists were removed from consideration?
Also, if they can be bossed because of business concerns, why should it stop at litigation? How can a reader trust that they wont buckle under when a company threatens to remove ad money? This is why there needs to be a firewall between the business end of a company and its editorial staff, business people should have absolutely no power what so ever in making decisions regarding coverage of products.
With Bastion, it was not the business end that made the decision not to review it, it was the editorial staff. They made the decision because they realized that readers would have a hard time seeing them as neutral arbiters in this particular case. It was a signal saying "Hey guys, we know that there's an issue here, and we just want to make sure that you know that we're aware, and that we highly value your trust in us as editors and reviewers, so we're choosing not to review it". That is perfectly fine for the editorial side to decide; in fact, it's commendable. It was the right thing to do. It increased trust in Giant Bomb, whereas this CNET thing will only undermine their credibility.
Log in to comment