This is probably ignorant of me but...
While facts from Jeff would be preferred, I feel we have a pretty good read on the situation from those with inside sources (PA and former Gamespot employees). This is obviously speculation but it appears to be the most credible explanation that the available information suggests.
The overal indication appears to be the following:
Jeff (and perhaps others of his editorial team) were not well liked within management (and perhaps especially with "new" management). He (and his team?)were known to have irritated publishers in the past with reviews that were both lower than expected in score and considered harsh (honest?) in tone.
The Kayne and ***** issues appears to be the final tipping point in which CNet Management, after hearing yet another publisher either threatening or actually pulling advertising dollars out of the site finally decided to act to resovle their "problem" with Jeff (and his team?) and his tone's negative impact on their advertising revenue.
By sacrificing him (as PA suggests) they achieve two things (from their POV). They remove the "ring leader" and send a chilling warning to those that are left. Those remaining will likely either fall in line out of fears of job security or leave in frustration, either way changing their editorial team's tune to one that management wants them to be singing.
Of course the obvious problem is the apparent ignorance of the amount of backlash that such a move would cause. It seems almost frightfully ignorant to think that they couldn't have forseen the impact this would have on their credibility and perception among their readers.
Either management made a very hasty and unwise move or they calculate that any backlash will not be significant enough to outweigh the "gain" they perceive they will have by sending the aforementioned message to their editorial team.
Is there an angle I missed? (I'm confident that there is
)
