Uber exec frustrated over media smears, makes stupid comment. Journalist lynch mob ensues.

randomname

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
2,712
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/uber-executive-suggests-digging-up-dirt-on-journalists

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, Emil Michael, made the comments in a conversation he later said he believed was off the record. In a statement through Uber Monday evening, he said he regretted them and that they didn’t reflect his or the company’s views.

His remarks came as Uber seeks to improve its relationship with the media and the image of its management team, who have been cast as insensitive and hyper-aggressive even as the company’s business and cultural reach have boomed.

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.

At the dinner, Uber CEO and founder Travis Kalanick, boyish with tousled graying hair and a sweater, made the case that he has been miscast as an ideologue and as insensitive to driver and rider complaints, while in fact he has largely had his head down building a transformative company that has beat his own and others’ wildest expectations.

A BuzzFeed editor was invited to the dinner by the journalist Michael Wolff, who later said that he had failed to communicate that the gathering would be off the record; neither Kalanick, his communications director, nor any other Uber official suggested to BuzzFeed News that the event was off the record.

Michael, who Kalanick described as “one of the top deal guys in the Valley” when he joined the company, is a charismatic and well-regarded figure who came to Uber from Klout. He also sits on a board that advises the Department of Defense.

Over dinner, he outlined the notion of spending “a million dollars” to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. That team could, he said, help Uber fight back against the press — they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine.

Michael was particularly focused on one journalist, Sarah Lacy, the editor of the Silicon Valley website PandoDaily, a sometimes combative voice inside the industry. Lacy recently accused Uber of “sexism and misogyny.” She wrote that she was deleting her Uber app after BuzzFeed News reported that Uber appeared to be working with a French escort service. “I don’t know how many more signals we need that the company simply doesn’t respect us or prioritize our safety,” she wrote.

At the dinner, Michael expressed outrage at Lacy’s column and said that women are far more likely to get assaulted by taxi drivers than Uber drivers. He said that he thought Lacy should be held “personally responsible” for any woman who followed her lead in deleting Uber and was then sexually assaulted.

Then he returned to the opposition research plan. Uber’s dirt-diggers, Michael said, could expose Lacy. They could, in particular, prove a particular and very specific claim about her personal life.

Michael at no point suggested that Uber has actually hired opposition researchers, or that it plans to. He cast it as something that would make sense, that the company would be justified in doing.

In a statement through an Uber spokeswoman, Michael said: “The remarks attributed to me at a private dinner — borne out of frustration during an informal debate over what I feel is sensationalistic media coverage of the company I am proud to work for — do not reflect my actual views and have no relation to the company’s views or approach. They were wrong no matter the circumstance and I regret them.”

The spokeswoman, Nairi Hourdajian, said the company does not do “oppo research” of any sort on journalists, and has never considered doing it. She also said Uber does not consider Lacy’s personal life fair game, or believe that she is responsible for women being sexually assaulted. (Lacy initially declined to comment on Michael’s remarks; she denounced them in a column after this story was published.)

Hourdajian also said that Uber has clear policies against executives looking at journalists’ travel logs, a rich source of personal information in Uber’s posession.

“Any such activity would be clear violations of our privacy and data access policies,” Hourdajian said in an email. “Access to and use of data is permitted only for legitimate business purposes. These policies apply to all employees. We regularly monitor and audit that access.”

In fact, the general manager of Uber NYC accessed the profile of a BuzzFeed News reporter, Johana Bhuiyan, to make points in the course of a discussion of Uber policies. At no point in the email exchanges did she give him permission to do so.

At the Waverly Inn dinner, it was suggested that a plan like the one Michael floated could become a problem for Uber.

Michael responded: “Nobody would know it was us.”
 
The lady in question is on a full blown mission to destroy them now. She's outraged the exec hasn't been fired yet, and is calling for investors to stop supporting Uber over their anti-women behavior.

An excerpt of some of the negative pieces this lady wrote:

Recall this is the same company that declined responsibility for the death of a 6-year-old girl at the hands of one of its drivers, showing no empathy or remorse in the process. It’s the same company whose CEO casually refers to it as Boob-er for the impact is has on his sex life. It’s the same company that recently saw a regional office publish a promotion likening female drivers to call girls.

I’ve never had much of an issue with Kalanick’s hard charging competitive nature or libertarian beliefs. But this sexism and misogyny is something different and scary. Women drive Ubers and ride in them. I don’t know how many more signals we need that the company simply doesn’t respect us or prioritize our safety.

Uber driver hits, kills six-year-old girl. Is “Not our problem” still an appropriate response?
ht tp://pando.com/2014/01/02/uber-driver-hits-kills-6-year-old-girl-is-not-our-problem-still-an-appropriate-response/

“We call that Boob-er:” The four most awful things Travis Kalanick said in his GQ profile
htt p://pando.com/2014/02/27/we-call-that-boob-er-the-four-most-awful-things-travis-kalanick-said-in-his-gq-profile/

The horrific trickle down of Asshole culture: Why I’ve just deleted Uber from my phone
ht tp://pando.com/2014/10/22/the-horrific-trickle-down-of-asshole-culture-at-a-company-like-uber/

The moment I learned just how far Uber will go to silence journalists and attack women
htt p://pando.com/2014/11/17/the-moment-i-learned-just-how-far-uber-will-go-to-silence-journalists-and-attack-women/

And the latest on this:

UPDATE: Emil Michael called my cell phone shortly after I published this and asked to talk off the record. I’m not entirely sure how he got my phone number as I’ve never met or previously spoken with him. I told Michael that I would not talk to him off the record. This is an issue of vital importance to our readers, Uber’s riders, journalists and women in the Valley, and I will not have a conversation I can’t share with them. He said goodbye and hung up.

UPDATE II: After the above update, Michael sent me the following email…

Dear Sarah,
I wanted to apologize to you directly — I am sorry. I was at an event and was venting, but what I said was never intended to describe actions that would ever be undertaken by me or my company toward you or anyone else. I was definitively wrong and I feel terrible about any distress I have caused you. Again, I am sorry.
 
The lady in question is on a full blown mission to destroy them now. She's outraged the exec hasn't been fired yet, and is calling for investors to stop supporting Uber over their anti-women behavior.

She is stupid, Uber is dominating the market and nobody seriously cares about this shit.
 
Uber driver hits, kills six-year-old girl. Is “Not our problem” still an appropriate response?

You've got to be fucking kidding me... Uber has saved countless lives, probably in the THOUSANDS if not more by providing low cost transportation service and greatly expanding that market to people who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Of course Uber drivers will get in accidents once in a while!! Why are these people so retarded?
 
These comments were obviously stupid and an apology was warranted but they shouldn't lead to a firing. For once it looks like they won't:

Uber CEO calls journalism comments "terrible," but isn't firing the guy responsible
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/18/7242761/Uber-Travis-Kalanick-comments

It's a disturbing trend how these Tumblr/Twitter/journalist lynch mobs are starting to succeed at destroying people's lives over anything that could be remotely construed as hate speech or political incorrectness.
 
Good comments on this thing elsewhere:

This whole story feels like they took a frustrated guy venting at dinner and making it into a conspiracy.

Meanwhile, Sarah Lacey comments publicly and insultingly on people's political positions, emotions, and dating life.

What the man said was very stupid. But it feels a lot like, "She wants to attack our sex lives, politics, and call us terrible people? We should dig in to what she's done."

That's still unacceptable, but seems like blowing off steam and being frustrated at someone who makes money off of being mean and generating outrage.

Again, the behavior is totally unacceptable. But making this out to be a conspiracy rather than a frustrated executive ranting at someone who is known to be rude and very personal about the rudeness and who gets paid on pageviews and outrage is a little much.

a) Organizations (for profit and not) should be monitoring journalists and columnists who write about them. Conflicts of interests are rampant and often undisclosed. Individuals, both writers and editors are courted and manipulated continuously. You should care if journalist X is getting invited to the White House or your competitor's private events. As a blatant example there is a certain NYT columnists whose contributions have included almost word for word the position of a lobbying group I'm familiar with. I'll leave him unnamed.

b) The page view journalism model rewards writers for being inflammatory and exaggerating. This means you really need to keep a close eye on writers for disinformation because when something spreads, it happens really fast, within hours. Rather than lengthy investigative pieces, the model is basically a fire hose of shit and watching which chunk sticks and goes viral. This also means writers tend to produce volumes of articles attacking the same or similar individuals and organizations. Some of the ludicrous stories I've seen recently track back to writers with minimal to no credentials and a long stream of irrelevant "stories." One piece of shit stuck and it blows up. What these guys are doing is more closely analogous to trolling and hate speech than informed research.

I'm not the kind of person who imagines the world is constantly devolving towards a lower state. I think the negatives from the current nature of "journalism" are outweighed by the positives we have gained from the same communications & publishing trends.

The best thing you can do as an individual is to not read stories from these sorts of groups. The headlines are misleading, the stories are often irrelevant and misinformed. Stick to places that publish accurate titles and require writers with some sort of credentials.
 
Back
Top