Buzzfeed:
A senior executive at Uber suggested that the company should consider hiring a team of opposition researchers to dig up dirt on its critics in the media — and specifically to spread details of the personal life of a female journalist who has criticized the company.
The executive was Uber Senior VP of Business Emil Michael and, according to the story, the female journalist was Sarah Lacey, who wrote this story for PandoDaily, an op-ed piece that excoriated Uber and its policies.
Michael’s remarks, assuming the story is true, were foolish and chilling, especially given the high profile nature of the crowd at the dinner.
Michael, who has been at Uber for more than a year as its senior vice president of business, floated the idea at a dinner Friday at Manhattan’s Waverly Inn attended by an influential New York crowd including actor Ed Norton and publisher Arianna Huffington. The dinner was hosted by Ian Osborne, a former adviser to British Prime Minister David Cameron and consultant to the company.
And before you dismiss the story as Buzzfeed hearsay, there were several journalists invited to the dinner, including a Buzzfeed editor, so this appears to be first hand reporting.
Wow now I know never ever to use that service.
It’ll be a cold day in hell before my wife uses another Uber. She was on the receiving end of ‘inappropriate behavior’ by an Uber driver. One-off accounts can be dismissed, but there appears to be more than just a pattern emerging with Uber. Top-down sanctioned misogyny should be prosecuted. Where the hell is the DA? They should fire a shot across Uber’s bow before they ruin the company. Yet, many will say the whole company is infected and it should be euthanized entirely.
great business model, but company continuing to demonstrate its run by scumbags.
too bad those tools don’t have any PR staff reading this stuff.
“And before you dismiss the story as Buzzfeed hearsay, there were several journalists invited to the dinner, including a Buzzfeed editor, so this appears to be first hand reporting.”
And those “several journalists” aren’t just a few hacks (OK, maybe they are depending upon your opinion) “the dinner with a number of New York-based media people, including the Huffington Post’s Arianna Huffington, the New Republic’s Chris Hughes and IHeartMedia’s Bob Pittman. It was organized by [former advisor to British Prime Minister David Cameron] Ian Osborne” Re/Code, http://recode.net/2014/11/18/should-uber-fire-exec-who-suggested-investigating-reporters-personal-lives/, says the Buzz Feed writer, Ben Smith wasn’t informed the event was off the record which was why he reported it. It will be interesting to see how attendees that considered the event “off the record” will respond. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see HP full of articles critical Uber in the future.
Ever since their team of signature gatherers were complete a-holes to me, at multiple locations, I have realized what a POS company Uber is.
Charming. Perhaps one of their apologists can tell us how it’s really about ethics in journalism.
He needs to be terminated immediately.
If he can claim he’s increased company revenues, the VCs on Uber’s board will give him a yacht.
And blow. Never forget the blow.
Sleazy driver recruitment tactics, underhanded market-share grabs against Lyft, and now vindictive chickenshit retaliations against media types.
All reasons to avoid Uber like the plague.
This profile of Uber’s founder is worth a read by fans and detractors alike:
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/12/uber-travis-kalanick-controversy
“the main conference room in Uber’s swanky new offices on San Francisco’s Market Street is called War Room. It’s an appropriate lair for Kalanick and his ever growing team.”
“Hookers” is so déclassé. I think you meant “French escorts.”
I think you’re right.
Sounds exactly like the kind of guy I don’t want to give my money to.
This is an odd contrast to this: http://www.loopinsight.com/2014/11/10/the-uber-story/
She, wrongly described by Emil or the media as a female journalist, won’t stand a test for work ethics, fair play or disclosure.
Actually he and them (the people that went on to tell story) have done her a great favor for the national free PR campaign.
She’ll be silently thanking UBER while making as much of a deal of this in her pamphlet and in any other media that would listen, even if that means having Emil thrown out.
He didn’t suggest on making up dirt on her (not to be mistaken with journalist) as she usually does and threats to do (but without being on record). At least he suggested hiring journalist and detectives to find the dirt, they know she hides, not just making it up.
If you are a celebrity on the valley, as she pretends, and like most don’t hide dead bodies in your closet, you would even dare them to waste their time searching for whatever they want.
But if on the other hand your closet smells kind of weird, too many and many recent bodies you are hiding, you’ll do anything to deflect the attention away from it… and make someone else, the issue.
Calling yourself a journalist doesn’t make you one, no matter how hard you would like it to be.
Mind “not everything that shines is actually Gold.”
(Disclosure: I don’t give a dam about UBER)
And not everything that’s argued is actually valid. “Fair play”?
How is digging up dirt about anyone’s personal life supposed to be a remedy for an allegedly biased review? How does threatening to ruin someone’s chosen career in any way constitute a proper, mature, ethical response to having been described as having questionable business practices?
Everyone has dirt. By your reasoning, finding yours and publicizing it would be enough to call each of your statements into question, correct?
Anything regarding a person is personal, only if you worked for the Italian Mafia you would whisper your friend’s ear, “it’s just business, nothing personal”.
On the other hand, not everyone have right to have his dirt hidden from scrutiny. I’ll just point one case I think will make it very clear: the candidate to The Supreme Court proposed by the President. Given that The Supreme Court is not vacant, your statement that everyone has dirt (that can harm their career) can not be true.
If you’re a self proclaimed “celebrity” and “journalist”, that covers directly and indirectly the scene of the Valley, people and companies. You, as the candidate to The Supreme Court, should be ready to be vetted to validate her ethics and character.
I don’t pretend to be a journalist or a Supreme Court Candidate, there are professional that are based on trust. There’s a saying “Tell me where you have been, I’ll tell you where you’re going”.
Nope. Escalating this to high public office means you feel you need to take a long reach towards a metaphor you can create a false equivalence with. Try again.
I really don’t need to know about Matt Taibbi’s personal life to continue to want to see the next thing he investigates, because he has created a substantial body of work that proves he’s a valuable resource for understanding issues and events.
I don’t care what you’re pretending to be. You’re conflating “celebrity” and “journalist” as a convenient requirement to help deflect the real issues that address a well-heeled asshole’s behavior towards virtually everyone who either competes or disagrees with him.
I’m going to take a guess that you read Ayn Rand in middle school and never fully recovered.
No, I don’t know Ayn Rand but yes I got stuck with Greek logic, in this case Plato’s Logic, if you make an universal statement it has to hold true in all cases, else your statement is wrong (from a logic point of view). That’s why you test it with similar cases, like the one of candidates to hold a office in one of the three powers that conforms modern (Post-French Enlightenment Baron de Montesquieu) Democracy. During the latest years of the XVIII and early XiX century the already classical division of Montesquieu was modified to include the fourth power, also known as four state (in the US mainly), consisting in the press or more generally the media.
Getting back on track, wanting to be a Judge of the Supreme Court or a Powerful “Editor” & “Journalist” does not differ at all in its fiduciary duties to society both belong to branches of power that have to provide check and balances for Democracy to work.
By the way I think you answered yourself: «I really don’t need to know about Matt Taibbi’s personal life to continue to want to see the next thing he investigates, because he has created a substantial body of work that proves he’s a valuable resource for understanding issues and events.» That’s because for you he’s truth worthy based on what you know has been his personal work.
The guy at UBER did want to mention directly her, that why he statement was at first broad but then specific. And I repeat “Personal” does not mean what you try to imply -no body cares if she like sadic relationships (everything is personal) – but many would be amazed if they come up with proof that she extortionates in a continued way companies to fund her venues and to buy advertising from her company under the threat of going after them. Her credibility would be trashed, and so her reviews and opinions, wouldn’t it?
And I truly believe that no one, can be over and above anyone else. And UBER as anyone else has the right to defend themselves with the truth (even if she doesn’t like and you don’t either)…
What you seem to imply is that if UBER or its shareholders buy a media oulet then it would be fine… because then under your standards it would be journalism.
Journalism does not steam from boilerplate name of the Newspaper but from the integrity and objectivity of the people working under it.
You’re not “testing with similar cases.” You’re evading and hiding behind a convenient double-standard.
You’re requiring someone who had the temerity to criticize Uber’s business practices to do something other than substantiate her assertions. You’re requiring her to submit to an invasion of privacy on the orders of a guy who can’t substantiate his defense of his company. All for the offense of being critical while female. As if that has anything to do with the accuracy of her writing.
And you’re still okay with Uber doing something other than directly answering those criticisms. It’s hilarious how you bring up “extortion.”
I remember Plato. He had some funny ideas about how certain classes of people are born to do certain important jobs, while others are born for lesser goals. If you’re citing him, you do seem to believe that some people “can be over and above anyone else.”
This isn’t about Uber defending itself. This is about Uber eliminating anyone it sees as an impediment to its image. Because after all, the press is supposed to merely reprint little Emil’s press releases, not actually examine his business, right?
This isn’t about “ethics in journalism.” It’s about sophistry and privilege.
Last reply:
Plato believed, as explained in The Republic, the best form of government was the rule of the Aristocracy and the worst was the Democracy (not to be taken literally as their meanings in ancient Greece differ from today’s), his views were in consonance with Pythagoras’ own.
It’s funny you use a term, sophistry, that didn’t have a derogatory meaning until Plato used it in juxtaposition with the Socratic Method in Classic Athens.
It’s funny to see the lengths you’ll go to defend the behavior of Silicon Valley royalty.