Comment by danso | Hacker News Reader

Comment by danso | Hacker News Reader

I don't know if someone has submitted the original BuzzFeed report and it's just been buried/flagged...but let's give credit where credit is due:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/uber-executive-suggests-dig...

BuzzFeed's editor attended this dinner that was apparently "off-the-record", but such terms were not made clear to BuzzFeed, which is why we're even hearing this story. A few prominent journalists/publishers were in attendance, including Arianna Huffington, and I'm interested in what they have to say now that the horse is out of the barn.

But what really fascinates me is that even if Uber made clear that everything was off-the-record...what kind of batshitty, drunken affair was it such that an Uber executive could even think it'd be worthwhile to loudly muse about such a plan, as if no one present would ever leak such an abhorrent discussion. Either everyone was giving off a similar elitist vibe of hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil, or the Uber exec was saying these things jokingly while doing his impression of Richard Nixon. Or this exec is just incredibly stupid.

Edit: Also, Uber investors should take note of how wasteful this exec is. The Church of Scientology did the exact same thing in 2010...but they were able to hire a Pulitzer Prize winner, a former 60 Minutes producer, and the former executive editor of the top investigative news organization...all for less than $10,000 apiece (or at least the editor was, I'm assuming the other reporters received roughly the same rate)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02...

It was up twice and disappeared

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622088

> disappeared

Down-voted or removed?

I suspect there is a pro-Uber force on HN that downvotes any anti-Uber sentiment on HN, based on my own past experiences posting anti-Uber commentary. Whether or not that pro-Uber force is controlled by Uber, themselves, is unclear.

One example:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8328493

...notice 2 of 3 replies indicate surprise at how much I was being downvoted.

I'm not pro-Uber; these services are irrelevant where I live. I just hate gossipy toxic threads, so I flag.

But the article we are talking about are about something which is actually damaging and appalling. As for the truth or source, well, that is sth we always have to go with the journalist's integrity and then rely on analysis and discussion which we contribute to.

Sometimes life is messy. Can't sweep everything under the rug.

If nothing else, this is a good reminder to never trust the press. Too bad the press is the only tool we have to keep an eye on the other people you should never trust (politicians, ceos, etc). Instead, you should trust the anonymous internet commenters ! Oh, shit...what just happened?

I like to browse HN via https://news.ycombinator.com/newcomments

So, I just saw the comment and told why it may have "disappeared." I never read the OP, and don't intend to waste my time reading it. Apparently, many people don't like that I don't care about Uber. At all. Ironically, that just removed my flagging ability.

If it helps, my first impression of that post was you highlighting individual actions to smear the governing body.

eg.

>Christianity causes people to murder and steal, because the perpetrator of a murder/theft was Christian.

Any large group will have a number of bad actors, that is not indicative of anything except the large group being large. Even "interfering with the normal course of competitor's business" was an action of one firm, though it's pretty clear Uber allowed such actions to continue.

and finally "price surges" and "price gouging during states of emergencies." are ethically on the fence. People with a capitalistic bent would not find these immoral. Whether you feel our monetary distribution system is fair is another matter... I would argue that if wealth was fairly distributed (operating on my definition of fair here) then that would be a perfectly moral thing.

All this is to say: You were REALLY trying hard to smear Uber. Just like this article is. Which is really weird, because Uber's done enough things to smear themselves. They don't need help.

Ordinary users can't downvote articles. However, HN's system will automatically downplay any "flame war" articles, characterized by the upvote-downvote ratios in the comments section. That's my understanding anyway.

context is key. someone could have asked him what is the most evil thing a company could do to journalists.

No one has an "off-the-record" event and invites people from the media. Just saying.

Which leads to the more interesting question: what is the angle to be played from leaking this?

Maybe it's about shedding light on the pyschopaths that are running Uber?

I think the angle might occur earlier in the process. Saying something like this to a crowd containing journalists gives them initial targets when they see who writes about the story. That is, it's not so much that they could, it's that maybe it starts now.

Pageviews.

This is totally inaccurate. Members of the press are invited to off the record events all the time.

You are 100% correct and the people inviting you know there is a slim chance everything heard will stay on the down low.

Not true at all. POTUS does a lot of off the record or background briefings. Its legit, mainstream media culture.

"White House background briefings: Good journalism or anonymous government spin?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/white-house-ba...

This is all 'don't quote me on this' stuff.

Attaching names to quotes in these situations is condisered unethical. Seems no different from an ethics perspectiv e than other types of "off the record" commenting (ie, "you can reveal X but not Y).

But maybe somebody can school us (all) on the finer points here if we're reading it wrong.

BuzzFeedBen was very careful about noting that the organizers failed to indicate that the evening's remarks would be off the record, and that's a point Uber has (wisely) chosen not to dispute. Meaning everything said was fair game.

In other words, Ben was clearly signaling that his other sources could remain confident that he respects the known and accepted rules of engagement, and that he will continue to do so.

However, he will not let a genuine scoop slide by if some high-profile idiot gets up in front of a room with heavy duty media people in it and (drunkenly?) talks — in excruciating detail — about how he'd spend $1 million in company funds to go about personally violating journalists who wrote negative things about his company.

I say "drunkenly" because I have no other explanation for a compound failure of judgement this cosmically bad.

Unethical douchebag reports about unethical douchebag.

--Seems to be the cliffs note version

The problem with your version is that it establishes a degree of equivalency between the players that in no way reflects the actual situation.

Cliff's Notes are distillations, not distortions. Big difference.

Maybe you could elucidate this more clearly.

I think its quite correct.

(Also, if humor is not your forte, I'm sorry).

I wasn't trying to be funny. I was pointing out that it's out of line to accuse BuzzFeedBen of being unethical when he was doing straight and fully by-the-book public interest journalism.

The buzz-feed guy was not invited. He was a +1 of a guest. Which explains, but doesn't excuse, his ignorance.

That detail makes the author a douchebag.[1]

(And I'm not an Uber fan boy or apologist. Just sayin).

[1] Article source: 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.

And that means the fault (if there is one) is Wolff's, not Ben's.

I say "if" because if there's one instance in which it seems like a journalist can permissibly break his word of confidentiality (or conveniently neglect to mention to another journalist that those rules apply) it's when a high-profile person stands up and publicly declares his plan for using $1 million in company funds to personally violate yet another journalist who had the temerity to write negative stories about his company.

(Maybe if any there are any working journalists reading this thread they can chime in here?)

In the meantime, the original point stands: there's no sign that Ben knowingly broke the rules and even if there were, it's insane to say that this violation is remotely comparable to the one he was reporting.

When the press behaves un-ethically they invite other to turn the same methods on the press.

Thats a big problem and this bizzare turn of events seems to illustrate it quite well. The uber stuff is pretty lame, but these guys in hindsight almost seem to prove his point. When your journalists are un-ethical gutter dwellers, they lose any moral high ground. The argument that they should face the same scrutiny as there subjects almost starts to seem reasonable.

In this case, it would seem, everything is self-serving to buzz-feed. That creates a credibility issue for them. I could pre-text my way around any confidenctiality restrictions here in 30 seconds--all it takes is the assumption of two (not just one) unethical journalists in collusion. Thats basically what I assumed when reading how one invited the other, wihout disclosure of the ground rules, etc.

The problem here, is not that this happened or that that happened. Its that neither you nor I can tell with any certainty.

And that's why I think the (The Onion style) cynical cliff-note is actually the true story here.

A pox on all their houses.

That's what's known as tacit corruption.

Journalists who participate in "access journalism" get invited to off-the-record dinner parties and yachting weekends.

Journalists who ask hard hitting questions in the public interest tend not to be invited to the intimate soirées of the elite.

While there are very occasionally ethical reasons for a journalist to talk to a source off-the-record they are not going to occur in convivial social settings.

"Off the record" conversations need approval from both parties to the conversation. You can't just say "don't quote me on this" then reveal something monsterous. The details of anonymity arrangements need to include what information is going to be revealed; how that's going to be ised and why; and how the source is going to be identified.

Anonymity is used to protect the source and to report something of actual interest. Here the source was the story.

http://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-anonymity.asp

http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/ethics-handbook/human-s...

> On the record, on background, not for attribution and off the record: These are prearranged agreements between a reporter and a source, which govern how specific information can be used. These deals must be agreed to beforehand, never after. A source can't say something then claim it was "off the record." That's too late. When dealing with individuals who are not experienced in talking with reporters, journalists should make sure ground rules and potential consequences are clear, and then perhaps offer leeway. Of course, if the information isn't integral to the story, a reporter can agree not to use it. If you talk to five journalists, you'll likely get five different definitions for these terms. That's why it's important that a reporter clarify the use of these terms with a source before making any agreements.

The background briefings is really just 'seed planting'. They are providing information they intentionally want to have out in the future, it's preparatory and both sides know it. It's the careful dissemination of information.

From the article: "They’re invited to a background briefing, one of Washington’s most common, and little examined, rituals for the transmission of official spin, talking points and, occasionally, actual news."

honest question, what's the purpose of "off the record" or background briefings? Skimmed the link but not sure if I understood correctly. Is it to get the story out but not having anybody quoted or being anonymous on who said which?

Ok, I'll ask the obvious question. Why is this "abhorrent"? Is it also "abhorrent" that Sarah Lacy and others at Pando report on the personal life of Uber and other tech execs?

http://pando.com/2014/02/27/we-call-that-boob-er-the-four-mo...

http://pando.com/2014/10/06/venture-capital-and-the-great-bi...

tl;dr; Why isn't turnabout fair play?

To start, the Uber exec was suggesting that they do their dirt-digging anonymously ("Nobody would know it was us.").

Also, those articles you linked to are examples of journalists providing commentary around direct quotes or facts/reports about the company. AFAIK, Sarah Lacy didn't dig up and expose personal information about people at Uber nor their families.

I'm not sure if you really don't understand or are just arguing to be provocative, but I'll play along to make the point.

It's morally equivalent to saying that you would fund a smear campaign against a judge or juror that ruled against you. It's one small step from making threats of physical violence to silence negative reporting.

The press is considered an independent 3rd party bystander that is a crucial underpinning of any functioning democracy. Making aggressive threats against the press threatens the roots of civilized society, and is "abhorrent" because it's a tactic used by nearly every oppressive/fascist regime.

Are journalists who dig up dirt without making threats a "small step" from people who use violence against people without making threats first?

There is a core difference between threats of violence (such as what is done by oppressive regimes) and threats of telling the truth. And it's a bit silly to call Pando and Sarah Lacy an "independent 3rd party bystander". The entire enterprise is an extremely opinionated anti-tech enterprise - kind of like what the Uber execs proposed building, just with a slightly different target.

It sounds like you are saying the people who call themselves independent media deserve special privileges that the rest of us don't get. Is that correct?

Sarah Lacy would be skewered by the public if she said her goal was digging up dirt against a specific individual.

Similarly, she'd probably catch some negative press if she made questionable statements in a GQ article.

So no, she doesn't get special privileges.

If Uber wants to open a newspaper to advance their political agenda, they at least have to go through the pretense of reporting on everything, a la Rupert Murdoch.

So the act of digging up dirt is acceptable. It's only doing it in a targeted manner, rather than opportunistically, that's the problem.

I'm sure she might catch negative press - lots of harmless behavior creates negative press. I'm not asking how to manage the media, I have no interest in being a PR flack. I'm asking whether reporting on her questionable statements (the sort of thing opposition researchers do) would be "abhorrent".

Similarly, would exposing and reporting on her personal emails and other parts of her private life (as Pando has done to Evan Spiegel) be "abhorrent"?

>It's one small step from making threats of physical violence to silence negative reporting.

You gotta be kidding me!

You really think that journalists should be able to write whatever false, defamatory nonsense they please, free from any consequence?

I would guess you have no experience with journalists.

That would be libel and could be handled in court. Most civilizations left Eye-for-an-eye justice behind long ago.

Who says it isn't? I have read not a single iota of "Sarah Lacy is pure as the driven snow, this story about Uber taking revenge on the media proves it." I think a better question from your standpoint is not zero-sum, but "do they both suck?"

Sorry, but can you point me to the place where Sarah Lacy and Pando investigated the "personal life of Uber"? I can't speak for all the other things in that Pando article you link to, but when I read the snippet about Uber, I see something about how the Uber's CEO bragged about "Boober" and I see that that brag was derived from a public interview that the CEO gave GQ:

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201403/uber-cab-c...

So are you equating ripping on a public interview with GQ Magazine with this allegation by Buzzfeed? -

> 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.

What does "turnabout" mean to you exactly?

I linked to Sarah Lacy reporting on Evan Spiegel's private life. Why is it acceptable to expose his private emails, but not Sarah Lacy's private life?

If the opposition researchers dug up unpleasant things Sarah Lacy said publicly (but are now forgotten), would that be acceptable to you? (This is normally a big part of what such researchers do.)

Like I said, I don't know much off the top of my head about all the other things Pando could have possibly reported on, but to humor you, I looked up the stuff about Evan Spiegel.

It looks like it's sourced to a Valleywag article here: http://valleywag.gawker.com/fuck-bitches-get-leid-the-sleazy...

So to answer your question, no, I would not have an issue with researchers digging up things that Sarah Lacy has said publicly, especially if they pertain to the quality and integrity of her reporting. So I guess we're left to interpret whether her journalistic credentials is what BuzzFeed is claiming to be targeted here:

> They could, in particular, prove a particular and very specific claim about her personal life

And the last graf of BuzzFeed's piece doesn't entice us to give Uber's exec the benefit of the doubt:

> 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.”

I've worked in investigative journalism for a few years and have worked on projects that dug up things about people. But never have my colleagues nor I did such work under surreptitious means. We made our identities clear during the reporting, and we printed our findings and allegations under our own names, and we took the criticism that came toward us. As far as I can tell, Lacy operates under the same rules of the game. So again, I ask, where do you see the fair turnabout between what Lacy does as a journalist and what BuzzFeed reports to have heard from the dinner?

So I guess we're left to interpret whether her journalistic credentials is what BuzzFeed is claiming to be targeted here: ...a particular and very specific claim about her personal life

Seems analogous to Evan Spiegel's private emails about his frat bro's sex life.

If you are opposed to anonymity, I take it you would similarly complain if a woman anonymously blogged about douchey behavior at a tech company? Much like Michael, she'd be truthfully reporting facts about another person but hiding her identity to avoid a backlash.

[edit: the reason I interpreted the lack of anonymity as being the source of "abhorrence": ...never have my colleagues nor I did such work under surreptitious means. We made our identities clear... ]

Sorry, but why do you think I have something against anonymity? I'm sure you're aware of various investigative stories that have involved anonymous whistleblowers. Are you seriously equating an anonymous gadfly with a company conspiring to secretly ruin a public critic's life?

What's funny to me is that I've just come back from an event at Stanford where Barton Gellman, the Pulitzer-winning journalist who reported on Snowden and the NSA for the Washington Post, was asked if he ever felt threatened subsequent to his reporting on PRISM and the rest of the Snowden leaks. Gellman says no, he's never felt threatened. Certainly, he's worried about surveillance because he's still in communication with Snowden, and it is clearly in the NSA's best interest to know what Snowden is saying, and to someday intercept and stop him...and of course, the NSA and the White House has objected quite angrily (but publicly) to Gellman's work. But apparently, the NSA is at least professional enough to know that a line would be crossed if they messed with Gellman's life.

And now here I am, on HN, having a quasi-serious debate with someone who thinks no biggie if Uber would retaliate against someone like Lacy, even though Lacy's reporting is far less hard-hitting and substantial than what Gellman has done to the NSA.

Are you seriously equating an anonymous gadfly with a company conspiring to secretly ruin a public critic's life?

I'm trying to determine whether the action itself is "abhorrent" or whether it's only "abhorrent" because the person who discussed it is a tech dudebro that everyone loves to hate.

At this point I'm leaning very strongly toward the latter.

I thought you had something against anonymity because "...never have my colleagues nor I did such work under surreptitious means. We made our identities clear...". If that was merely a red herring, my apologies. I thought you brought it up because you believed it was relevant, and perhaps the source of Michael's actions being "abhorrent".

Hmmm, yeah, I guess I'm not communicating very clearly here. In my worldview, actions should be judged along with the circumstances that led to the actions.

For example, a human-wielded knife slashing across a human body to cause a bloody and gruesome wound. I consider that action relatively neutral without knowing more of the context.

If the knife is being wielded by a mugger during an attempted robbery, then I consider it to be an unpleasant action.

If the knife is being wielded by a doctor in an attempted c-section, I consider it to be a less unpleasant action, perhaps, even a justified and positive action.

I mean Jesus Christ, do you really enter into these discussions with an objectivity that can't conceive of how events and actions can have different values depending on the given circumstances?

I don't know why you didn't choose to explain the context, and instead focused on red herrings like anonymity.

This makes me believe the real context here is "he's a douchbag, now I have a reason for my hatred".

https://gigaom.com/2012/01/16/sarah-lacys-pandodaily-launche...

http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/23/lyft-a16z/

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102008782

Because freedom of the press is a Big Deal to many Americans, and attacking members of the media personally is a time-honored and effective way to reduce that freedom.

Because there is a big gradient in power between the executives of a multi-billion-dollar venture-backed global company (Uber), and the editor of a small tech news site (Pando). People don't generally like giant companies using their considerable power for personal vendettas.

Because when the knock against Uber is that it's over-aggressive and not sensitive to women, this is the sort of story that seems to strongly confirm that knock.

None of those answer the question why it is bad, you're just explaining why it looks bad.

"what kind of batshitty, drunken affair was it such that an Uber executive could even think it'd be worthwhile to loudly muse about such a plan"

CEOs are just humans harboring things commonly called "emotions" just like everyone else. They are not the flawless machines that PR wants you to believe. That's why they and everyone else needs some privacy, to just entertain idle thoughts that are neither politically correct nor moral to implement. Those "could spend a million dollars" are basically a white collar version of "I'd love to take them out to the back alley and punch their faces because they make me angry". Even when you know that it would be stupid, criminal and in no way a good way to resolve an issue such thoughts still may pass everyone once in a while.

I generally don't think that holding "public figures" to flawless standards is a good thing, it just asks for them to play a game of pretend, putting up a facade all the time.

The moments they think they are in private those fake masks fall. Remember for example the event were Obama and Sarkozy call Netanyahu a liar when they think the microphones are off.

It's one thing to afford a public figure some margin of fallibility for being human. It's another thing entirely for that executive to publicly express authoritative, aggressive behaviors towards potential dissidents. This is some dictator shit right here.

But it wasn't publicly. That's why I said that everyone needs some privacy and it certainly is also an aspect why the notion of "off the record" exists.

And while I wouldn't call it "dictator shit" since a CEO is not a government official with direct power over his targets, it would certainly be a smear campaign which I wouldn't condone.

I'm operating on the assumption that people say many things that they do not intend to follow up with deeds, especially when they think they are not talking publicly.

Private expression is fine in your own home. When you spout off about attacking journalists, in front of journalists, you are asking for it.

Plus, as mentioned earlier, this was not an off-the-record conversation.

source? article sayse dude was not invited, was +1 of an invited guest.

If this was in a a different context, maybe. But private dinner, and expressed in the hypothetical, it a bit of a stretch. This story is media hype for two reasons: (1) greed and ego of the press; and (2) greed and ego of the press. Buzzfeed looks good for breaking the story, and the comment is an existential threat to other journalists and their business models. Ego, here we are.

I'd be more worried about this if their were some evidence that this was a view (1) meant to be expressed in public (or actually articulated to the public); or (2) articulated in confidence internally in a professional context (which means the intent was real, not just rhetorical; or (3) if other eye-witness testimony comes forth that unequivically supports that this was an actual threat mean to intimidate those actually present (seems unlikely...but lets see).

Without that, this is just another internet shitstorm, manufactured by people who have something to gain financially or who are emotionally invested in maligning this individual or the company.

I don't think you need to give anone the benefit of the doubt here, its more that the evidence doesn't really support the conclusions that are implied by the reporting (at least, yet).

> they and everyone else needs some privacy, to just entertain idle thoughts that are neither politically correct nor moral to implement

That private space is amply available in the board room. That's a suitable space to say stupid shit as part of a process of working off steam and then finding a better solution or of playing devil's advocate.

A public meeting with journalists without pre-arranged privacy arrangements is not a good place to say really stupid stuff.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com