Hacker News Reader

Comment by gavanwoolery | Hacker News Reader

While I can't condone or condemn Uber's actions without more info, I also don't condone the actions of many journalists. To make it perfectly clear, I am in no way defending Uber's VP here. But what is said "off the record" could perhaps be taken out of context - maybe the VP was half joking? Thinking out loud? Far from an official statement or policy. Tasteless, yes, but not necessarily representative of other people at the company.

There are many journalists who simply do not do adequate research. In the age of one billion blogs, there simply is not the time or money to bring all slander, defamation, and libel cases to the courtroom. Many "journalists" or bloggers simply do not know who they are hurting or what damage they are doing (doing legitimate damage is fine, propagating false info is not).

Edit: if you disagree with me - totally fine, just let me know what you think - I like to hear alternative viewpoints! :)

View on HN

In my opinion someone in such a high up role in a high profile company like Uber who have had their fair share of bad publicity and controversies should know better. Having worked for the White House as a senior advisor, Emil Michael of all people should know the importance of being careful what you say in public, whether it be on or off the record.

While it is possible what he said was taken out of context slightly, the fact anything was said along these lines paints the picture of someone who should not be in business. What company does NOT have bad things said about them? We all live in a free country where journalists are entitled to their opinions just as much as everyone else including Mr. Michael. But the harsh reality is people in positions of influence or power whether it be a company or political party do not have such luxury, such is the case for Emil.

Sure Emil's views might not reflect Uber as a company, but because of his position, it comes back on the company. This is the kind of stuff that competitors of Uber can only dream of. Emil has made Uber look bad by association, in the eyes of the public, Uber might as well have released a press statement themselves with the same words. I would not be surprised if action is taken against him for this, Uber cannot really afford any more controversy.

Thanks, really well put - I agree. :)

Also, just wanted to add, I'm not concerned about journalistic opinions - that is protected by free speech. The only area where I consider such things harmful is where opinions effect things they should not, and objectivity is not used in the right places. What you are "free" to say, and what you should say in terms of being a good reporter are, of course, two different things. An example I've seen used a lot recently was where some reporter gave a pretty good game a low score because he thought it did not portray females strongly enough. I don't read game reviews to hear about political soap-boxing (even though I am pro-equality).

In the same way, I like to read about companies on the basis of their actions, or in the case of their official policies, their words - I'm sure many of us have made some comment that we look back on like "what was I thinking?" -- this sort of "gossip" reporting does not do it for me in that respect. Again, I stress that even in light of this, the VP does not seem like a good person in my book, but I won't let that effect my view of the rest of the company (Uber is doing a pretty good job of hurting its own image regardless ;) )

The decent response to "powerful tech executive considers doxxing female journalist who reports bad things about his company" is not to spend one paragraph thinking of every possible way he could be exonerated, then randomly slag online journalists with no-true-Scotsman arguments.

I don't really care how "innocent" or "guilty" the VP is, just thinking out loud - playing devil's advocate if you will. :) That said, I still do think there is legitimate concern over the lack of consequence in general among journalists, although admittedly this was definitely the wrong article to bring this up on - I think I've started a witch hunt now :)

Why are "innocent" and "guilty" in scare quotes? Do you not believe in the concept of innocence or guilt?

There are a lot of lazy, opinionated, hacky journalists out there, certainly. That you seized upon someone discussing revenge fantasies towards a particular journalist to air your problems with journalists as a class of people is problematic and not at all classy.

If anyone holds the idea that the fundamental problem in journalism today is that journalists are insufficiently deferential to the rich and powerful, that idea is laughably wrong.

If anyone holds the idea that the world would be a better place if journalists were MORE afraid of the negative personal consequences to them of writing stories critical of people who are rich or influential, that idea is also laughably wrong.

I agree with all your points, but I think maybe you have misinterpreted my intentions. Also not trying to use scare quotes - sorry for any confusion there. I absolutely think that journalists should not fear going after anyone, only that they make certain their facts are straight first (there have been quite a few cases where false propaganda has done a huge amount of damage). Not saying that is the case here, just making a general statement :)

Please, just stop. You say you aren't defending this behavior, but you effectively are -- and it's behavior that is among the filthiest, nastiest behavior I've seen in two decades in this industry. This has absolutely nothing to do with your -- or anyone's -- "concern" about journalism; this is about a top executive at a top company threatening the most vile, most disgusting kind of retribution against a public critic. The behavior is entirely indefensible and inexcusable, and Emil Michael should (and no doubt will) lose his job over it. Kindly pick a different occasion to have a discussion about journalistic integrity; the only discussion to be had here is whether this incident is a single broken executive -- or an entirely rotten corporate culture.

Request granted. I think I'm only digging my pit deeper anyway :)

You claim that some journalists do not do adequate research, but have not provided any examples or evidence in support...

> playing devil's advocate if you will

I don't think that the CEO of Uber needs a white knight.

And it's not just doxxing: we're talking about a company that has access to private data on people's movements. It's not hard to imagine how this info can be used to hurt their enemies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com