I'm not sure if it's pettiness. Perhaps think of it as a societal or economic immunological response. Such actors seek to punish, in whatever ways they can, entities viewed as "bad actors". This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and may actually be a good thing. As in creating social or economic consequences for those who fail to reciprocate resource sharing, these sorts of punitive actions can be net-wins for economy and society. This point goes beyond Uber itself; a conclusion might be that it's great to create a valuable and disruptive service like Uber... but one could be even more successful in doing so if they weren't a jerk about it (or were more savvy about avoiding the perception that they're a jerk).

It may be petty, as you say. Or it may not be. Regardless, it's sad that journalists today don't consistently go after all bad actors, if they're going to do this. Uber seems fairly inept and heavy-handed in managing their leadership brand, but many other companies have proven how simple it is to placate perception while behaving very destructively behind the scenes.