In front of journalists, the man talked in detail about a plan to destroy journalists giving negative coverage. As far as I know, you're the only person calling it "a conspiracy". But plenty of people are taking that as a way of threatening journalists.

The "blowing off steam" theory doesn't strike me as plausible. If it had happened at his local alley while talking with his bowling team, sure, maybe. But the CEO and and SVP of a $16 bn company don't sit down with a bunch of journalists by accident. Either the guy was intending to intimidate journalists (and Lacy in specific) or he is so dangerously clueless that a) he should not be a senior executive of anything bigger than a lemonade stand, and b) it would be hard to explain how he made it this far.

A journalist friend said that powerful people threatening journalists is routine, and that this sort of thing has a chilling effect on coverage. When smart people "accidentally" do something very self-serving, a reasonable working hypothesis is that they actually knew what they were doing.

> If it had happened at his local alley while talking with his bowling team, sure, maybe.

Several relevant scenes from The Big Lebowski come to mind ... :)

(it'd make me seriously reconsider my choice of bowling-buddies, though :) )

Perhaps.

OTOH, it could also be (certainly if it was serious and possibly if it was just venting) a sign of something bad. Sarah Lacey's criticism was that Uber have an "asshole culture." This does not exactly disprove her statement.

I'm not touchy. I think a lot of "PC outrage" (including possibly hers, I haven't really dug) is the nasty "fun to be outraged" variety. This has a terrible effect, turning corporate (also police and every type of official) vernacular into an unnatural lifeless sludge. I'm usually on the other side of these kinds of debates. But, there is such a thing as misogyny, asshole culture and such. They exist, and this might be a sign of it here.

Uber are an extremely aggressive company. They need that aggression to do the job they're trying to do which brings them into conflict all the time. Aggressiveness can spread. Uber is now a big company. They have many people's livelihoods, safety & privacy in their hands. There's a standard they need to meet. If a senior exec talks like this to reporters off the record, it may be the kind of talk that happens a lot.

It is a little disturbing, even as just talk.

Not to mention the fact that Asparagirl has intentionally interpreted his comments in the most sensational way possible, even going so far as to fabricate threats.

"Look into your personal lives, your families" somehow magically became:

> threatening to reveal details of the location of their children

There's clearly a great deal of stupidity on both sides here.

In the same story that they talk about digging up dirt on reporters' families, Uber revealed details of a different reporter's movements to her, without her consent, and supposedly an impossible thing to do. Is it such a stretch to think that revealing details about your family + revealing details about your movements and location could also = revealing details about the movements and location of your family?

Again, read Sarah Lacey's rebuttal piece in PandoDaily. Her first thought after hearing about the threats (by phone) is for the safety of her kids, who are not with her at that moment.

It's not fair to make up a very specific statement, attribute it to someone, and then say it was in accordance with how you think their views run. You are right about uber being slime but don't pull a mark fuhrman.

Sarah Lacy is hardly a reliable witness. The whole reason she got involved is because Emil Michael got frustrated with her hit pieces. And if your claim to fame is writing hit pieces, of course an incident like this is going to land right in your wheelhouse and you're going to make hay of it.

Don't misunderstand me here--I just think there are two sides to this story, and both sides are assholes.

> Sarah Lacy is hardly a reliable witness. The whole reason she got involved is because Emil Michael got frustrated with her hit pieces

1) How does someone being annoyed by a story make the reporter unreliable?

2) Why would they be in full damage control mode over the earlier articles or this one if they weren't true?

1) She was writing hit pieces on Uber before this incident and clearly has an axe to grind regarding that company. Of course she's going to milk this incident for all she can and react as uncharitably as possible. That's PandoDaily's business model.

2) The thing about bad PR is that it doesn't have to be true. Regardless, I'm not even talking about the basic facts reported by Buzzfeed. I'm talking about Sarah's interpretation of them as a threat against her children, which is unwarranted by the original report and likely her own sensationalism.

1. "Hit piece" is a loaded term. So far there's no reason to warrant it just because they wish she was channeling their PR department.

2. Again, we have no reason to think this isn't true - they're in damage control mode trying to say it wasn't serious but nobody is claiming that it wasn't a real quote. Much as you seem to be personally invested in attacking her credibility, it's simply not possible to seriously claim that "My family and my children" (her words) is a particularly unreasonable interpretation of a threat to investigate “your personal lives, your families” (his words). Even assuming the most likely interpretation that the threat was to expose something about an adult (past legal mishaps, an affair, etc.) some of the most significant damage from those attacks would be suffered by children who don't really understand why their parents are being targeted.

I think Sarah's sensationalizing it because sensationalizing things is her business. That's all.

Let's assume that the Uber Executive was also doing his business then.

Seems to me very clear that one's quite a bit deeper in the wrong than the other, "doing their business".

(also, I disagree with the term "sensationalizing" when the facts of what actually happened are in fact already "sensational" enough to stand for themselves. Stating that you're worried about your children when someone calls to investigate and dig dirt on "your personal lives, your families" isn't really adding any extra "sensation" to what is already out on the table, it merely informs me that she has children to worry about)

To "dig dirt" means to gather embarrassing private information about someone that could ruin their reputation. Exactly what information could you gather to embarass and discredit a small child? There's no logical way to interpret that as a threat against Sarah's kids, and I'm giving Sarah the benefit of assuming she's clever enough to realize that. Sarah brought her own damn kids into this to tug at the audience's heartstrings and make herself look more sympathetic.

Isn't it a clearly established principle of journalism that reporters should report only for the benefit of the people and organizations they're reporting on?

If she wasn't kowtowing to Kalanick's PR team, she was remiss and doubtlessly only hunting for page views. Definitely had it coming--turnabout is fair play.

That's not victim blaming. And victim blaming is not always unwarranted, but you're presenting it as if it's always bad.

Do my comments really bother you so much that instead of comprehending and responding to them logically, your brain just short-circuits to spitting dismissive, insulting remarks?

I'm not blaming Sarah for the veiled threat that was made against her--I think it's petty and disgusting for an Uber executive to sink to the level of a gossip blogger. I'm just saying that Sarah is a gossip blogger and will milk this thing for all it's worth, so we can't just assume that she's being totally honest the way a private citizen would be.

Your comment did question the victim's validity. This may not be blaming in the literal sense of the word, but well within the expression.

The point of all this is that even if the victim was an unreputable person (which I have no reason to believe here, but even if) the data sifting and the threats are still wrong. Very wrong.

Some people still find it important that the victim's qualities enter the discussion, and this is what is meant by "victim blaming". We can talk about it, sure, and I'd be interested in what you have to say, but it's neither here nor there in this discussion. Otherwise we would spiral into "he did -- she did" which is not of value of anyone.

> The point of all this is that even if the victim was an unreputable person (which I have no reason to believe here, but even if) the data sifting and the threats are still wrong. Very wrong.

Agreed. If you follow the context of the comment thread, that's not the idea I was questioning.

Regardless, there's a line: press intimidation is unacceptable from any company. Even if the press is biased and has an axe to grind. If their reports are factually untrue and you have evidence to the contrary, write a press release and present it publicly. If this happens to a reporter enough times, they'll be branded unreliable. If their reports are factually correct and the facts therein piss off your customers, well, that was always a risk of doing those things in the first place.

But this type of stuff has happened to Uber enough times that they've developed quite a shady reputation. Uber has lost the benefit of the doubt in many people's eyes because at the very best, they hire shady people to do shady things for them. At the worst, they're stalking private citizens and intimidating them to keep quiet.

Are you saying that wasn't a threat?

Also, if you don't interpret "families" as including children, what do you interpret it as? Her parents? Does that make it better?

>Does that make it better?

It avoids the "think of the children" reaction, so yes.

The guy never threatened to target children or reveal any information about them. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

How long would it take to get a restraining order if he had done as you say? And what would be the effect on the valuation of the company if that happened?

Play fair. Don't be a Prolog interpreter.

You clearly have no children of your own, Mr. Throwaway. While Asparagirl might have been a bit too creative when filling in the details, every parent would be very concerned when some hostile entity hints to be "looking into... your family".

While confrontational by nature, I do not see any of the parts displaying stupidity, but perhaps yourself. Please try to live up to your chosen handle for this exchange.

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

A frustrated guy venting at a business dinner, attended by an influential crowd, specifically addressing a person they just hired that could (and probably would) make this "conspiracy" happen for real if he made the call.

See, personally, I think even in a perfectly informal off-the-record setting, what he suggested was simply wrong and should be called on it. Whether you're frustrated or not. Unless it was extremely clear from the context it was just a joking "haha we should .." with no intent to follow through, then, maybe then it becomes acceptable to say these sorts of things in an informal off-the-record setting, assuming you're sufficiently acquainted with the current company that you know they won't be put off by such a tasteless remark.

What he called for was a personal attack on someone's personal life. With a straight face, to his hired media mouthpiece. It's IMO not very different (though obviously less illegal) from telling your hired muscle "we should teach that person a lesson, beat them up a little", with no intent to follow through, obviously. The window to make that last bit over-abundantly clear evaporates within a minute or so. And even then, in what sort of company does he think it's okay to even begin to vent about that sort of thing, even without intent to follow through? Surely a lot more private than some fancy I-thought-it-was-off-the-record dinner.

Obviously his own moral compass didn't prevent him from saying these things, in the first place. That's exactly why he should be called on "venting" such ideas. Even when he honestly had no intent to follow through, he's a powerful man, speaking directly to someone whose task it would be to make this happen, someone might take it seriously and warm to the idea that such behaviour could be acceptable.

a journalist's job often involves being "rude". some journalists specialize in "rude" reporting. scrutinizing powerful and wealthy people is one of the legitimate roles of a journalist, even when it comes across as "rude".

powerful and wealthy people NEED to be scrutinized. when we do, we often discover that they are sociopathic scum like several of the executives at Uber have turned out to be.

This is almost akin to a celebrity getting upset and punching a paparazzi. It happens due to stupidity, human emotion and rash behavior. Is it right? No, but it does shed light on some issues.

Reporters and journalists can and do scrutinize people. However, what has become of journalism is that for sites like Pando Daily/Tech Crunch/? etc. they are gossip magazines about Silicon Valley business people and software developers. Not only are they talking about the companies, they are talking about the personal lives of the people that make up the companies.

Given the work/life balance of most startups and successful companies, it is tough to judge the differentiation between a tech company's executives. There are reasonable legal precedents being set for common tort law with celebrities, however when do the executives of a company become a 'Public Figure' and lose their right to privacy? Why is it okay to follow someone and publish everything they say and do?

The same thing, of course, can be said for journalists. The lines are being blurred all around.

these aren't blurry lines. if Emil Michael feels like a journalist stepped over a line in reporting then he should have filed a civil suit. that's not what he suggested. he suggested utilizing millions of dollars of the resources of a billion dollar company to engage a campaign of systematic intimidation and harassment against journalists he didn't like.

Because this is what journalists do.

Ah, yes. Two wrongs make a right. Of course they do.

Is that really your position? Or do you want somebody in the room to be a responsible grownup?

(Of course, preferably both sides would be grownups, but one side crawling into the gutter does not excuse the other side for also doing so.)

I agree. But does it justify idly suggesting, in frustration, that one do so?

There's scrutiny, and then there's repeatedly provoking people until they react. Has it occurred to you that "journalists" can be powerful and wealthy too, and just as sociopathic?

they sure can. we should have journalists who cover other journalists too.

So, journalists get a pass when they 'investigate' someone, but the people they're investigating can't do a 'counter-investigation'? Are journalists some kind of special beings?

You're equating the two kinds of investigating. The "counter-investigation" you're talking about is retaliatory — write something we don't like and we'll punish you with details about your personal life.

Journalists are not special beings, but it is typically presumed that they report in good faith, and without ulterior motives. I know that isn't always true, but it's true often enough that I think the burden of proof would be on the people being investigated to prove that the journalist's intent was malicious.

How would they prove the journalist's intent was malicious without conducting an investigation of their own?

> That's still unacceptable ...

Yes! Extremely unprofessional and completely unacceptable regardless of whatever it is she did to "deserve" it.

By the way, is there a link to this article she wrote that is allegedly so over the line?

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.

> The page view journalism model rewards writers for being inflammatory and exaggerating

Just look at this discussion

Ya, on the record here, I think you're absolutely correct. A lot of journalists, Lacy included, have written pieces targeting founders based on events in their personal lives and their pasts.

People are correct to freak out when someone targets another person by digging into their private lives, the problem is a lot of tech journalists have gotten away with this, especially when the founders or entrepreneurs in question have been libertarians or right-wingers.

Sure, that could be the case.

Of course you would have to completely ignore the constant pattern of scummy behavior from Uber that is perfectly consistent with this particular incident.

I think it's sad that you feel the need to use a throwaway, because your interpretation is pretty much how I read things.

Amen.