Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

buzzfeed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 373 posts

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#81

Post by kubiiii »

caractacus wrote: post #58
kubiiii wrote: post #44

Are there legal reasons why this SVP does not apologize to the journalist he specifically targeted while recognizing he threatened her and regreting it?

He did. He called her (though she has no idea how he got her number) and asked to speak off the record. No, really. He did. "Hey Sarah, I realise there's this massive story blowing where I threatened to wage war on you and your family and I know you're a high profile journalist in this area but can we just have a quick friendly chat off the record?" Scroll to the bottom of her article: http://pando.com/2014/11/17/the…

Thanks, the parent link did not mention this. His email reads like something sincere. Still confused why he did apologize on the phone. Harder to CCI your CEO on the phone maybe.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#82

Post by ghshephard »

nailer wrote: post #68

Misleading headline, from article it wasn't in any way a serious suggestion.

It now reads, "Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists " which is exactly what he did. (Actually, he even went further and said it would be acceptable do so)

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#83

Post by potatolicious »

tim333 wrote: post #66
Asparagirl wrote: post #3

Attempting to blackmail the press if they challenge your company's PR? Specifically targeting parents' worst fears by threatening to reveal details of the location of their children? Openly rifling through the location metadata of another female journalist, a customer of theirs, without her consent? Implicitly saying they'll leak customer data of Uber customers who are journalists, the kind of thing that can potentia…

They should probably fire Emil Michael or similar. The "spending 'a million dollars' to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. .... they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine" proposal is a bit out of order. The money to throw $1m around that kind of way comes from Google and like investors and they could object that they don't want to be…

Given the Benny Hill-esque series of blunders by Uber in recent memory, I'm not sure it's safe to think that Emil Michael and his behavior is the exception at Uber, rather than the rule, and that firing him would rid them of this type of behavior/culture.

And given the publicly documented exploits of Travis Kalanick I think there's a strong case to be made that Uber's toxic culture comes from the top.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#84

Post by ac2u »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #76
7952 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That kind of labelling is never going to happen. But really it has always been the wrong way round. For example, you shouldn't really need to have "dolphin friendly tuna" anymore than "kitten friendly chocolate". If a company spends millions on marketing but does horrible things it is incredibly disineguous. Having unethical practices and not telling customers is like selling vegetarian food which contains animal pro…

I wouldn't count on that. In the financial market, its already happening. You can buy information from a ratings agency that assesses a companies ethical behavior. If they don't meet the investor's targets, they won't invest in that stock. I could see that happening on a consumer level as well, all you need is that data and a smartphone.

I agree with you in that any attribute which an investor is interested in can be certified by an agency willing to do the legwork.

However what I do wonder is how actually effective something so ambiguous is? and how much it would be gamed? This is after 2007-2008 when we find out that financial institutions were able to game the risk classification of investment vehicles despite being wrapped in supposedly ambiguity-busting red-tape.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#85

Post by potatolicious »

Bahamut wrote: post #75
bcantrill wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To say that this is "media controversy" borders on the absurd: this is entirely inappropriate and indefensible behavior from a top executive at a top company -- and it raises all sorts of legitimate questions about corporate culture and how companies internalize public criticism. You use the passive voice when you say that "it seems destined to be above the line" when in fact it is above the line because many in the…

It's disrespectful that the community cannot allowed to at least see the stories we want to see bubble to the top, good or bad. There are good lessons to be learned in all of these issues, moreso than a lot of articles that bubble up to the top here.

Ehh, I can see where dang is coming from - some moderation is needed in order for the community not to descend to Reddit levels of intelligibility.

That said, I do agree that painting this as a "media controversy" is grossly off the mark. This isn't your usual (somewhat entertaining) mud slinging between trashy bloggers, this addresses real misbehavior by a real tech company.

Imagine if Glenn Greewald and Snowden were treated as merely "media controversies".

The Asshole Problem(tm) is becoming a huge, gigantic, glaring issue that will only get bigger. The deafening silence from our industry whenever deplorable behavior like this surfaces is itself worth addressing. This especially includes the usual deafening silence from investors (including YC) whenever their companies are caught doing something overtly evil.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#86

Post by acdha »

shakethemonkey wrote: post #51
bhouston wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not only that, but by the same token this is in no way "attempted" blackmail. This is a direct attempt to shut her up -- this an attempt to silence their critics via blackmail -- and they hoped it wouldn't get mainstream press coverage. They hoped she would find out just via whispers from those who were there.

It's not blackmail by either the legal or common-usage definition of blackmail. Even if Uber followed through with such a sleazy plan, it would not be blackmail. For blackmail, a demand must be made, accompanied by a menace. Floating an idea that you plan on digging up dirt? That might have been an incipient but ill-advised plan, it might be idle dreaming, or it might be it might be machiavellian FUD.

Not all blackmail is done by cartoon villains. This was clearly a threat, made by someone who has made more than a casual thought about it: “Stop reporting about us or we attack you personally”

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#87

Post by tim333 »

potatolicious wrote: post #83
tim333 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should probably fire Emil Michael or similar. The "spending 'a million dollars' to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. .... they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine" proposal is a bit out of order. The money to throw $1m around that kind of way comes from Google and like investors and they could object that they don't want to be…

Given the Benny Hill-esque series of blunders by Uber in recent memory, I'm not sure it's safe to think that Emil Michael and his behavior is the exception at Uber, rather than the rule, and that firing him would rid them of this type of behavior/culture. And given the publicly documented exploits of Travis Kalanick I think there's a strong case to be made that Uber's toxic culture comes from the top.

yeah, quite likely

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#88

Post by bhouston »

shakethemonkey wrote: post #51
bhouston wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not only that, but by the same token this is in no way "attempted" blackmail. This is a direct attempt to shut her up -- this an attempt to silence their critics via blackmail -- and they hoped it wouldn't get mainstream press coverage. They hoped she would find out just via whispers from those who were there.

It's not blackmail by either the legal or common-usage definition of blackmail. Even if Uber followed through with such a sleazy plan, it would not be blackmail. For blackmail, a demand must be made, accompanied by a menace. Floating an idea that you plan on digging up dirt? That might have been an incipient but ill-advised plan, it might be idle dreaming, or it might be it might be machiavellian FUD.

> For blackmail, a demand must be made, accompanied by a menace.

It may not meet the legal definition -- but there is a clear demand and menace:

The demand is that journalists do not write negative stories on Uber.

The menace is that Uber will retaliate against any journalists by digging up dirty on them personally and thus hurting either their reputation, careers, or relationships.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#89

Post by scarmig »

nailer wrote: post #79
thesystemis wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think he's pissed off because she's a woman, he's pissed about because she's critical. Still, when he says someone will be "personally" responsible for someone's sexual assault, he's essentially trivializing sexual assault. It's like saying that a rape victim is "partially at fault", it's wrong, indefensible and misogynistic.

That is not in any way 'like' blaming people for being raped.

It's a world apart from blaming victims, obviously. But the Uber exec is clearly suggesting we should blame the journalist for other people's sexual assault.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#90

Post by king_jester »

spindritf wrote: post #61

I cannot treat complaints from journalists about digging up dirt seriously. This has essentially become their job. Were was this criticism when some guy's personal phone calls were broadcasted and dissected? When Gawker was buying people's sex tapes? And not months ago, although then too, last week[1]. This is the world you created. Enjoy. EDIT: And if you're downvoting, I'd love to hear why. [1] http://defamer.gawke…

Bad behavior by some journalists doesn't justify personal attacks by companies against journalists.
Post reply on HN