CBS Fashion Police at Grammy’s thankfully ignored

We can all be thankful that for some stars, the Grammy dress code email sent out by CBS was completely ignored. Thank you Kelly Rowland, Rihanna, and especially a great big thanks to Katy Perry’s boobs for keeping the Grammy’s sexy.

The dress code was outlined in an e-mail obtained by Deadline where CBS forbid stars from wearing overtly sexual outfits. “Please be sure that buttocks and female breasts are adequately covered,” the e-mail reads. “Thong type costumes are problematic. Please avoid exposing bare flesh under curves of the buttocks and buttock crack. Bare sides or under curvature of the breasts is also problematic.” Really, problematic for who. your ratings? I am pretty sure that if the stars listened to CBS, ratings would drop faster than a

The e-mail continues, “Please avoid sheer see-through clothing that could possibly expose female breast nipples. Please be sure the genital region is adequately covered so that there is no visible ‘puffy’ bare skin exposure.” That may be the funniest line I have ever read. I think that CBS owes Sean Combs some money for the term “puffy” bare skin exposure.

Here are some of our favorite dresses that were banned at this years Grammy’s, but thankfully showed up anyway.

Kelly Rowland and her cut out dress. Kelly also had our favorite quote “I thought about the dress code and thought about it again and that’s about it,” Rowland, 32, told reporters backstage. “I respect.  See, I wore clothes!

kelly-rowland-grammy-backstage

Rihanna completely ignored the see through clothing part of the memo showing off her perky nipples in a sheer red Azzedine Alaia dress posing on the red carpet.

Rihanna_Grammys

Katy Perry and her fabulous cleavage

katy-perry-at-the-grammys-2013

We are not really sure what is going on over at CBS anymore, but the bans on SodaStream, Dish Network and the CES controversy, and now this ban on fun in general are starting to make CBS look like they just want ALL of us off their lawn.

Did CBS just kill off CNET?

The news gathering business is full of tough calls every day, especially when there is both news and editorial content involved. There is always a very fine line to walk between what is news and what is editorial content. The public generally does not see the difference in cases like the “Best of Show” awards given by sites like ourselves and CNET. Last week we now know that CBS crossed a line that should never be crossed in journalism.

CNN is now reporting that after CNET announced its “Best of CES” candidates, the CBS corporate office “laid down a ban: CNET won’t be allowed to even review Dish products, much less give them awards.”

The page for CNET’s review of Hopper was also updated with a statement that “the Dish Hopper with Sling was removed from consideration for the Best of CES 2013 awards due to active litigation involving our parent company CBS Corp. We will no longer be reviewing products manufactured by companies with which we are in litigation with respect to such product.”

The story actually gets juicier when CNET tells their side of the story. Excerpted below is the account directly from CNET as reported by Lindsey Turrentine

Last week, about 40 members of the CNET editorial staff met in the CNET trailer in the parking lot of the Las Vegas Convention Center to vote on our official Best of CES winner. We gathered on Wednesday evening and heard from each editor covering the show what he or she liked best.

Ultimately, we chose the Dish Hopper for our Best of CES award because of innovative features that push shows recorded on DVR to iPads.
After the vote, we communicated the winners, as we always do, through normal channels. CNET immediately got down to the business of preparing for a massive stage show the following morning and preparing a press release.

Later that evening, we were alerted to the legal conflict for CBS. All night and through to morning, my managers up and down CNET and I fought for two things: To honor the original vote and — when it became clear that CBS Corporate did not accept that answer — to issue a transparent statement regarding the original vote.
Ultimately, we were told that we must use the official statement and that we must follow corporate policy to defer all press requests to corporate communications.

This is a completely untenable situation for the reporters and editors at CNET and quite possibly could mean the end of CNET as a respected news and opinion site. Respecter reporters are resigning in protest from CNET. The editor in chief for CNET reviews openly stated that maybe she should have immediately resigned. How is the public supposed to believe anything coming out of CNET anymore, or CBS for that matter. Does this mean that if they do not support a politician that they will not cover them? When it comes down to it what is the difference?

How can CBS possibly justify that? News organizations report news. Simply the fact that you are in litigation with a company MUST be reported on in an unbiased manner within your news organization and to do proper reporting you have to review the product enough to explain why you are in litigation.

These kinds of things have happened before sadly and the wall is dead between the corporate and news divisions amongst almost all of the major media players. That is why we do what we do and bring reporting that is not beholden to any corporate entities. We will never allow the money counters to interact with the news gatherers or editorial staff at SNFN.

You think this is not important? Think about it this way: AOL owns Engadget; NewsCorp owns The Wall Street Journal and its influential tech coverage; IAC invests in Aereo but owns The Daily Beast. If these corporate overlords are going to control editorial content, where will we get our news?

More on the web: