Media Bias

Most media bias is too subtle to easily see. It is often the story you don't see. Or the story you do see that the news outlet was paid to air, such as the recent example of CNN receiving money for their coverage of Bahrain. 

There have been two stories recently, not well-covered of course, that illustrate my point. Both stories involve CBS. 

A few years ago CBS bought the tech website CNET. I used to listen to a few of their podcasts—I am not sure why I stopped. CNET reviews various tech and entertainment hardware. Every year at the electronic show CES they give awards. 

Here is how a website that competes with CNET put it. 

I’m not going to pretend that the Dish/CNET debacle is a major news story. I can assure you that it isn’t and next week we’ll still be reading a CNET camera review from 2011 to decide which ultra zoom to buy (or, arguably, you’ll just end up on Amazon and read those reviews, which, I’d argue, are supplanting traditional gadget reviews). The whole thing stinks, but it doesn’t take a super sleuth to figure out what happened. It probably shook down like this: a CBS lawyer got wind of the award, saw the damage it would do to the case against Dish, and told the board. The board made a few calls, the editors cried, and the Hopper was pulled. News got out because someone who is close to a number of CNET and Dish folks tweeted about it. This would have been a quiet kill if hadn’t been for those pesky kids.

First, I agree that this is not a major news story, but I disagree in that it should have been. The Hopper is a product that automatically records TV shows, and when you watch the show later, it automatically removes the commercials—my kind of product. The Hopper was going to win best of show, but CBS, as they own CNET, stopped this. 

I have no idea of the merits of CBS' suit against Dish. I certainly understand that CBS' business plan is more and more in the toilet because of the DVR. I would not be surprised if they won. The Hopper certainly violates the spirit of Dish Network's agreement to air CBS on the satellite network. 

Another incident happened this last weekend. Forbes describes it: 

CBS banned Soda Stream’s Super Bowl spot because, apparently, it was too much of a direct hit to two of its biggest sponsors, Coke and Pepsi.

Please pause and read that sentence again.

I am shocked that CBS would ban a spot for being too competitive. But I’m even more shocked that the advertising world isn’t up in arms about it. 

SodaStream is a product to make your own soda. I have it. It is OK if you want cola, but its carbonated water product is awful. Unfortunately this is why I bought it. 

What these two stories tell us is that the Media conglomerates will be keeping what they perceive as their own best interests. This should come as no surprise. The advertisers are the boss. Will Faux News ever point out that the gold sellers who advertise on Faux are paying a fortune for these ads, and they must pay for it with higher commissions or larger spreads/markup?  Will Faux News ever do investigative reporting on the Pharmaceutical industry as they are big buyer of ads? 

Are you that naïve? 

I know you are not. 

The first step is to be aware of the problem.  The second step is that you will be able to concentrate on those outlets where you can ignore the ads, either by a printed or internet Media, or by a DVR.  The third step is to reduce advertiser-supported media. I wish there was a fourth step of being able to buy your news media without ads. I personally am looking for that fourth step.

The irony is that in both these instances CBS actually managed to make the situation worse for them. In particular SodaStream is getting more buzz from the rejection of their Superbowl ad than they would have gotten from the ad itself. I want to do my part in this, so here is the ad.