When is an interview an advertorial? One is curious when a supposed interview opportunity is turned into a tightly controlled "on-topic" structured conversation. Why muzzle a CEO or limit the questions of an interested reporter? A recent CNET interview with Google CEO Eric Schmidt illustrates the question.

CNET reporter Elinor Mills, who aggravated Schmidt a few years back by Googling information about him and reporting on it - was promised a one-on-one with the CEO if she flew across the country to the unveiling of Google Health. Prepared to meet Schmidt with a number of questions about the company and its future, Mills was informed just before the meeting by a Google staff member that only inquiries about Google Health would be allowed.

While the reporter tried her best to get to timely and important topics such as the future of paid search, mobile applications, etc., Schmidt deftly deflected them or refused outright to give a response. The net result? A story about PR "handling" instead of a great opportunity to garner positive news by Google.

Given the recent spat of news regarding Microsoft/Yahoo, a ComScore report that paid-click search was flattening out, Google stock actually sagging, and forecasts for a slumping economy being seen as a precursor to lower ad spending, Schmidt could have taken a PR minute to address those issues circling Google to great advantage.

In another example recently, Apple PR staffers cut off a British journalist for straying "off-topic" by asking a question about Apple's iTunes monopoly at a launch event for the iPhone. Footage of the altercation went around the world and made Apple's PR team look bad when they didn't have to.

In the past, Fortune filed a dispatch from Google's "media day," when the company pledged to be more media friendly and transparent with the press. Controlling their CEO does not seem like a step in that direction.