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