And those reasons are? Still asking. Is this still just, "Because it's a convenient thing to do?"
I'm well aware that CNet did some super shady shit by firing (Edit: Not firing, they left after the dispute) that person and changing the voting, but that has nothing to do with this conversation.
I bring it up because we're collectively at an intersection between self interest (convenience) and professional interest (making money) as companies like CBS try to find ways to keep up the revenue of their properties while editorial is endorsing products that circumvent them, or dipping into very gray areas when it comes to using things like emulators to generate content while also speaking out against people who use Adblock. I don't think going full on Lars Ulrich and shaming a large portion the audience by equating their use of Adblock to theft is the right approach. Catching more flies w/ honey rather than vinegar, etc.
I remember reading up on the Hopper story and the reason (at least the reason given) for why a CBS property couldn't endorse the hopper is because they were currently in a law suit with the Hopper and to have a CBS subsidiary showing favorable preference for the product would have completely destroyed their case.
Some of those details are probably a bit off, but the general idea of "It couldn't win 'best of show' because CBS was in a legal dispute with them" are certain to what I had read/listened to.