Dogged By ‘AI’ ClickBait Scandals, CNET (Once Valued At $1.8 Billion) Sold For $100 Million
from the how-the-mighty-have-fallen dept
It hasn’t been a fun few years for once-respected tech news outfit CNET. After being purchased by private equity backed marketing firm Red Ventures in 2020, the company has been in a downward spiral due to brunchlord mismanagement, facing scandal after scandal surrounding everything from softening its coverage to please advertisers, to using fake “AI” generated journalists to craft lazy clickbait.
In what might hopefully be some sort of turnaround for the once respected brand, The New York Times reports that CNET was just sold for $100 million to Ziff Davis (whose reputation similarly isn’t quite what it used to be). It’s a steep fall for CNET, which back in 2008 was valued at $1.8 billion, thanks, ironically, to CNET’s earlier, 2000 acquisition of… ZDNET (which was created by Ziff Davis) for $1.6 billion.
CNET has always had a bit of a history with scandal, thanks to managers and owners that routinely blurred the firewall between editorial and marketing. Perhaps best exemplified by a 2013 scandal in which then parent company CBS forced CNET to retract a CES award for Dish’s ad-skipping DVR technology because CBS didn’t like Dish’s innovations on that particular front.
But things go so much dumber under private equity ownership.
Like so many fail-upward brunchlord types (who have absolutely no idea what they’re doing in the realm of tech journalism), Red Ventures quickly got to work trashing the CNET brand further. Ownership was quick to adopt fabulism-prone “AI” to generate fake journalists and lazy error-prone clickbait — without telling any of the outlet’s human employees any of this was happening.
In fact the AI generated so many mistakes and errors, it actually cost CNET more money in human editing manpower to correct the mistakes than they were saving on using AI in the first place. The sloppy automation CNET rushed to embrace also resulted in widespread plagiarism at the site. Things got so bad that Wikipedia recently had to downgrade CNET’s reliability score.
Red Ventures ownership of CNET was highly reflective of an era in tech journalism where ethics have become passé. An excellent Verge feature last year found that the private equity firm not only had little respect for its workers or audience, they routinely softened coverage and reviews to try and please advertisers and tech companies:
“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.“
This is all a pointed illustration of the vision these kinds of gentlemen have for journalism. Namely that they don’t care about journalism at all; they care about building an ethics-optional, badly automated engagement-chasing, clickbait advertising machine that effectively shits money.
A machine that has little to no meaningful respect for audience, employees, truth, or much of anybody else. Driven by owners and managers that don’t see AI as a way to ease the administrative burden of journalism or improve the lives of journalists, but as a way to lazily cut corners and undermine labor.
CNET/Red Ventures certainly aren’t alone. Vice, Sports Illustrated, Newsweek and countless other brands have been repurposed and reanimated as the worst sort of lazy clickbait mills. There’s now no shortage of companies filling the internet with automated garbage, in the process shifting a dwindling amount of ad revenues away from real, meaningful journalism.
You’d like to think that Ziff Davis might take CNET in a better direction. But reading the New York Times’ conversation with Ziff Davis’ Vivek Shah, you don’t really get any sense that Shah is thinking about things all that differently, because there’s no real financial incentive to think about things differently:
“Mr. Shah said he decided to acquire CNET partly because it is well-known industry brand, and its sizable audience will give Ziff Davis greater clout with advertisers looking to reach tech consumers.”
In short, while CNET might occasionally stumble into tech journalism by accident, its primary mission will be to please advertisers, which usually, sooner or later, undermines the act of journalism.
It’s a bad habit that’s increasingly driving readers to worker-owned independent news outlets and newsletters (which, contrary to industry narratives, can be profitable once you eliminate outsized executive compensation from the equation) if they’re looking for anything with even a fleeting foundational relationship with the actual truth.
Filed Under: ai, artificial intelligence, clickbait, enaggement, journalism, media
Companies: cnet, red ventures, zdnet
Three days left! Support our fundraiser by January 5th and




Comments on “Dogged By ‘AI’ ClickBait Scandals, CNET (Once Valued At $1.8 Billion) Sold For $100 Million”
Yeah, I used to be a regular on Cnet and that’s when I quit reading. You can’t trust news or reviews from a site whose corporate parent vetoes coverage it doesn’t like.
One of the particularly wild stories was last year when they started deleting old articles, on the crackpot theory that only having recent articles would improve their Google PageRank. (Google responded “That’s not a thing.” I am not paraphrasing.)
Re:
These days, all companies big and small will chase after SEO and Google rankings. You can find endless blogposts and influencer videos on how to target your audiences, how to get the biggest bang for your AdSense buck, and so on.
The problem is that it’s created an environment where companies (read: bosses) believe that such outreach and coming in first place is easily attainable, and not reaching this goal is the fault of their subordinates or consultancy firm. Even worse is when they think it’s something that can be done on the cheap or for minimal effort, despite the fact that even the most obnoxious thought leaders on the subject concede that you need a consistent output of authentic content or customer relationship. Which is exactly the thing that most bosses do not want to bother cultivating. Why else would they hire some other schmuck to do the work for them?
It’s things like this that make me want to strangle the people who harp on about how competition is a good thing. Usually, they don’t mean they’ll be competing themselves. They would much rather watch other chumps fight for a piece of an ever-shrinking pie, then shit on the losers afterward.
CNET?
They still exist? Lol
Re:
In some form or fashion. I remember when that was the first place a person would check instead of laughing at the idea.
Re: Re:
They also once owned the download.com domain and website. They may still, but whois is anonymized. That domain alone would have been worth $100M once upon a time.
Re: Re: Re:
According to “Wobado” (I have no idea whether that’s reputable), it’s worth 1,015,220 USD today—or $1000M.
What's that definition of insanity again...
“Mr. Shah said he decided to acquire CNET partly because it is well-known industry brand, and its sizable audience will give Ziff Davis greater clout with advertisers looking to reach tech consumers.”
He probably should have considered what it’s ‘well-known’ for these days before using that as an excuse but setting that aside he bought it for a fraction of the value it had just over a decade ago precisely because it’s managers focused more on pleasing advertisers rather than serving their audience.
Time and time again those with obscene amounts of money utterly demolish the idea that intelligence has any link to wealth.
Re:
He probably means they’ll bundle ads on CNET with Ars Technica and other ZD properties the way that cable companies used to bundle the home shopping channels with the channels that were actually interesting.
“the vision these kinds of gentlemen have for journalism.” (emphasis added)
Suggested, more accurate terms: d-bags, idiots, 2ndBreakfastLords. They certainly aren’t gentlemen.
No doubt Red Vultures is into leverage
Leveraging previous brand names to increase their worthiness as an ad platform might work if only they hadn’t gutted the reputation of those brands recently – not thinking ahead
They must spend their days in their happy, happy place where all their deals make them millions upon millions and ruin what was functioning businesses
So, a different horse on the same merry-go-round.
In its final years. CNET was a literal HIVE of viruses and malware. The company was paid by Chinese and Russians to repackage popular products for download (think winrar etc) with really really nasty payloads.
And a crapton of “no-choice” adware drivebys etc.
I just wish i knew of some good sites for tech news. Used to ready Dailytech, Extremetech and Arstechnica, but those sites have all turned into utter crap in the last 10 years 😛
Re: …huh?
Are Technica is still good. What are you talking about?
Re: Re:
yeah, i was thinking of engagdet and misnamed it 😛 totally my bad
Glad you at least mentioned CBS, because when the whole C|NET constellation was bought by CBS was the beginning of their downward spiral. (Quality-wise. Business-wise, they were basically always in trouble like every other internet-focused company with no business model other than “durr, sell ad space”.) Most of the properties, including C|NET itself, were pretty decent up to that point. But boards are gonna board and investors are gonna destroy. We’ve already long destroyed capitalism itself, this is what we do.