
What Was Said at the Uber Dinner - viscanti
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicole-campbell/what-was-said-at-the-uber_b_6198250.html
======
DigitalSea
At first I was reeled in and started to see a different perspective on a
pretty controversial story and then right towards the end, BAM! Nicole (author
of the article) hits us with this important nugget:

 _I will admit that I am friends with Emil. We were both White House Fellows
serving in different departments during the first year of the Obama
administration where we both quit our jobs to take civil service positions to
improve our country._

You would think someone commenting on such an important and controversial
story in tech like this would fully disclose that she is in-fact friends with
Emil and worked with him right at the beginning of the article? Seems like a
big conflict of interest here and changes the tone from "see this from another
perspective" to "I am defending my friend, so everything I write is going to
be heavily biased"

I feel as though even Nicole's account is sensationalist in itself. This line
right here: _At that point, I wanted to grab Emil. I kind of knew what Ben was
up to._ \- A journalist asking questions at an event for journalists? Who
would have thought such a thing would happen?

Nicole then goes on to confirm what the previous lines of text confirmed that
this is an emotional and personal response defending her friend:

 _I am upset that Ben sensationalized what happened at that dinner._

I am not trying to say that the original story by Ben wasn't sensationalist,
but it wasn't a fabricated lie either. Emil said what he said, this article
even confirms that. I have no issue with Nicole rallying to the defense of a
friend, I would do the same, but I would at least disclose the fact before,
not after.

~~~
dkrich
_Seems like a big conflict of interest here and changes the tone from "see
this from another perspective" to "I am defending my friend, so everything I
write is going to be heavily biased"_

Why? She is probably one of three or four people on the planet qualified to
speak to what actually happened there. The idea that she should recuse herself
from publicly posting an account of what she saw first-hand just because she's
friends with the subject of the controversy doesn't hold water in my opinion.
In fact, since pretty much every article that has come out (all by people who
were not themselves in attendance) has had the goal of making attacks against
the company and its executives, perhaps a friend of an executive who can offer
a personal insight into what happened is the best person of all to write an
account of what really happened.

It seems that the public at large is more than happy to be spoon-fed facts
from Pando Daily, Gawker, and BuzzFeed who carelessly level poorly-researched
personal attacks heavily-weighted with personal opinions and biases passed off
as "journalism" without actually asking themselves the simple question- "What
has my own personal experience been?" I for one like Uber and Lyft, and use
both regularly. Never have I or anybody I know experienced any serious problem
after having used them several hundred times, despite the constant onslaught
of accusations that females are at risk using it.

Compare that to the taxi industry. In fact, just last week, after learning
that I needed to pay for my ride with a card for expense reasons, refused to
let me out of the cab and tried to drive me to an atm against my will and I
had to call the police to make him stop the car. This is a true story.
Happened last time I took a cab. Despite the fact that it is a law where I
live that cabs MUST take a credit card.

I'm certainly not suggesting that it is okay to spy on people with the intent
of blackmailing or evening the score (and I suspect most everyone would agree
with that). I'm just suggesting that we be fair in our criticism. Blogs have a
very real incentive to get the most page views that they can and are more than
happy to do so at anybody's expense. I've seen that happen enough to know not
to take anything I read on the internet at face-value.

~~~
rosser
Disclosing the friendship up front isn't a recusal. It's simple honesty.

~~~
dkrich
Well then in that case, can we ask the likes of Pando and Gawker to disclose
at the beginning of their accounts that they were not actually at the dinner
and all information is based on second-hand accounts?

Maybe if they are feeling extra generous admit that they have a vendetta and
personal bias against Uber because the CEO made a reference to "boobs" in an
interview? Something that most people in the real world, I have to tell you,
probably don't actually care about.

~~~
mattmanser
Uh, news stories are based on accounts. Are you saying every news story should
start "I wasn't there, but a reliable source told me'?

Because that would get tiresome very quickly.

~~~
dkrich
Uh, no, it was a rhetorical question. I'm saying that if we want to make some
special case that the author must disclose that she knows the subject of her
article before describing what she witnessed first-hand, then we should maybe
recognize the fact that all other people reporting on this topic with so much
certainty as to what happened weren't actually there. If you read pretty much
any Pando article you will find that all citations to past articles seemingly
supporting the main thesis are actually other poorly-researched stories
written by other Pando authors. After all, how reliable is a source who is a
writer for BuzzFeed?

Here's one example of sensationalist headlines masquerading as journalism from
a cursory scan of the front page (yes, he is citing a BuzzFeed article that is
apparently citing an internal memo that despite some crafty sensationalist
language, is doing nothing more than outlining plans to hire an internal
research department). Is this somebody who has a less-biased view of the
situation that the HuffPo author?

[http://pando.com/news/uber-sought-to-hire-opposition-
researc...](http://pando.com/news/uber-sought-to-hire-opposition-researcher-
to-weaponize-facts/)

~~~
mattmanser
Nicole Campbell is not a journalist, so yes, very different standards apply to
her when she is given a voice in a newspaper.

She has no career to lose and so must be far more open about her relationship.
It's bizarre that HuffPo thought it was even appropriate to publish the story
given that relationship, in traditional newspapers you would expect it to
appear in the letters section not as an article.

------
mc32
If what she reports is how things developed, I think things look bleak for
public discourse. It's as if we'll all have to censor our thoughts before
pronouncing them. Sure, we can learn to think before we speak and have a lot
of internal monologues, but, in the end it's the same. We internalize the
thoughts and process them internally without being able to think out loud.

I think it's a shame one cannot think out loud for fear things will be taken
literally. Yes, we can mask things by 'anonymizing' the conversations, so
instead of using a real person as an example, just say someone or
'journalists'. but it's a shame people's dinner conversations or even pub
conversations will be taken as their official edicts and sanctioned
pronouncements --when lots of times there is boasting, bravado, nervousness
and other times there are threats and other unsavory conduct. However, it's
unfair to see it all as the latter kind.

~~~
alexqgb
_It 's as if we'll all have to censor our thoughts before pronouncing them._

You know, this really isn't a problem for people who don't have thoughts about
silencing critics by intimidating their families.

~~~
nailer
From the previous discussion PandoDaily is a ValleyWag-type gossip site. If
someone was writing about your own personal relationships, would you ever
think you "might be justified" in doing the same?

~~~
selmnoo
What do you mean "ValleyWag-type gossip site"? ValleyWag was actually calling
out Valley companies for the misogynistic shit they should be called out for,
while everyone else was sitting quietly on the side.

~~~
mc32
I can't speak for the OP. What I think the OP is saying is that some outlets
thrive on being sensational --one thrives on Hollywood sensationalism, this
one may thrive on valley sensationalism --it just so happens to coincide with
a social issue in this case, but that may just be coincidental --that is, do
they take on all social issues whether they drive page views or not, whether
they create outrage or not?

In other words, they both serve their own brand of red meat to their
audiences.

------
applecore
Here is Michael Wolff's account of what happened at the dinner, whom Ben
Smith, BuzzFeed's editor in chief, accompanied as a guest:

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2014/11/...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2014/11/19/behind-
the-scenes-uber-buzzfeed-fracas/19269737/)

~~~
badusername
And many others: [http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/20/buzzfeeds-ben-smith-
plays-...](http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/20/buzzfeeds-ben-smith-plays-dumb-
about-company-investors-how-would-we-even-know/)

I'm not refuting any ethical questions that were being thrown around, but I
would never trust Buzzfeed to do any honest and serious journalism. These are
the same people that created the most annoying clickbait lists, sponsored news
and their whole design seems to be centered around getting as many ad
impressions as possible. Sensationalizing a story for their own benefits is
not beyond them.

~~~
dkrich
Not sure why you are getting down-voted. I agree 100%. If we are going to
discuss conflicts of interest, we should start with the fact that BuzzFeed's
entire business model centers on getting the most page views in the shortest
period of time they possibly can.

~~~
ericd
Yeah, we should probably collectively start referring to those sites as online
tabloids so that people don't confuse them with high quality news
organizations.

------
cousin_it
It seems like everyone considers this the most important question:

Should we, or should we not, have a witchhunt because of what this guy said
over dinner?

I think this is the wrong question to ask. I've seen quite enough internet
witchhunts over the last few years, and have come to the conclusion that they
are always harmful, because they are never proportionate. You can't have
justice if your mechanism of justice isn't proportionate.

~~~
freshflowers
It's an easy diversion to label any criticism a "witchhunt".

It's a witchhunt if it's merely an accusation without evidence. In this case,
Emil Micheal publicly confirmed the veracity of the Buzzfeed report and
apologized. In another example that was labelled a witchhunt, Brendan Eich was
on public record as supporting an anti-gay proposal.

It's not a witchhunt if the people in question are attacked over what they do
or say and not over unproven allegations.

As for proportionate, that's quite subjective. It's not a coincidence that the
subjects tend to be fundamental issues of ethics and ideology over which
opinions vary wildly.

~~~
cousin_it
People shouldn't be attacked for what they say.

My idea of free speech is a society where people are not afraid to speak their
mind. Absence of government censorship is only a small part of it. It was good
enough long ago, when governments were the only powerful groups that could
scare you into silence, but today it's no longer enough.

~~~
dtparr
>People shouldn't be attacked for what they say.

> My idea of free speech is a society where people are not afraid to speak
> their mind.

Aren't the people doing the 'attacking' (assuming you're being metaphorical
and I've not missed an account of a physical assault), also simply speaking
their mind?

Edit: Just a note that this isn't specific to this case, but the general
notion that you can say what you want without being criticized seems to
actually limit the speech of others.

~~~
cousin_it
I suppose I'm just wishing for a society that would disapprove of political
witchhunts the same way it disapproves of Eich's support of Prop 8.

------
lotsofmangos
So, a coalition for responsible journalism, staffed by company journalists
with the job of responding to negative articles that affect the corporate
bottom line. You know, I am not sure that is a coalition for responsible
journalism. Perhaps their slogan could be: _" This is about ethics in tech
journalism"_.

Also, given the article is by someone who overheard an Uber executive suggest
that Uber should pay people a million dollars to say nice things about them
and disparage opponents, I must admit I am somewhat skeptical of the tone the
article is taking.

Furthermore, given that Uber came out with an immediate apology and did not in
any way claim that anything said by the journalist was false, I will treat a
report by a professional politician who is both a friend and a colleague of
Emil, with a grain of salt so large that Sisyphus couldn't roll it.

~~~
wakemc
"BuzzFeed itself — a financial play as much as Uber is — has key investors who
are investors in Uber's main competitor, Lyft. Those investors are, too,
investors in PandoDaily. Does this have any bearing at all on the cost of tea
in China? I don't know. But I know that little in this world is what it
seems."

That's directly from the end of the linked article in Applecore's post. I
haven't been following this "scandal" particularly closely, but from what I
have read, I haven't seen many people talking about this.

If the identity of the author of the OP article causes you to take said
article with a grain of salt, does a financial connection between Lyft and
BuzzFeed produce another, similarly sized grain of salt?

~~~
lotsofmangos
About as big as the one created by the relationship between Uber and Buzzfeed
via Chris Dixon, perhaps slightly bigger, but they sort of balance. edited to
add - those two are much smaller grains though. As far as I am aware, the
journalist has investments in neither and investors tend to have their fingers
in lots of pies.

~~~
mikehearn
The bigger conflict of interest, and seemingly the lesser reported connection,
is between Buzzfeed and Sidecar. Buzzfeed's Executive Chairman Ken Lehrer
(listed second on their team page[1] after CEO Jonah Peretti) was a seed
investor in Sidecar[2][3]. He would unequivocally benefit from Uber's
downfall. And he seems pretty outraged by this story – he's only tweeted 113
times since 2012, but the last 13 of them have been on this issue.[4]

I have no idea how Buzzfeed works internally, so I don't know if their Exec.
Chairman's connections could influence their reporting, but I feel like it's a
significant enough conflict that it should have been disclosed.

[1]: [http://www.buzzfeed.com/about/team](http://www.buzzfeed.com/about/team)

[2]: [http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/side-
cr](http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/side-cr)

[3]: [http://lererhippeau.com/companies/](http://lererhippeau.com/companies/)

[4]: [https://twitter.com/kenlerer](https://twitter.com/kenlerer)

~~~
lotsofmangos
It seems evident that Emil did suggest setting up a rather Orwellian coalition
for responsible journalism that would be nothing of the sort. Even the nicer
account details that rather well, amusingly blind to the fact that her version
still sounds shady as hell. Now given that this was said to a reporter at
dinner, the fact it came to be published represents normality and you do not
really need to go digging through the investor list of the news organization
involved to see why it got published. If buzzfeed hadn't carried it, someone
else would.

edit - remember, this is the half-heard sympathetic version:

 _" The last comment that I heard was when Emil hypothesized about creating a
coalition for responsible journalism. Ben said that would likely fail because
companies have no expertise in journalism. Emil flippantly said he could hire
professional journalists for $1 million to get the expertise to make sure that
they could respond when negative articles come out."_

 _" I heard a mention of a Sarah Lacy and overheard Emil say that he felt
terrible that by writing an article, Sarah had actually suggested that people
choose less safe alternatives based on a charge of sexism that was really a
personal attack on the CEO with no basis in fact. Emil then said that Sarah
wouldn't like it if someone wrote false things about her or published an
article that was factually wrong because we all have done things in our
private lives we are not proud of."_

Even this version still sounds much like a plan for a well funded astro-turf
operation with an implicit threat to go after journalists, specifically Sarah
Lacy, no matter how flippantly, casually or politely it was said.

~~~
viscanti
Given the article, it sounds like he was baited into giving a sound bite that
could be taken out of context, by a reporter at an off the record dinner.
Given the full context, it sounds like they were discussing how a company
COULD deal with reporters who write biased attack pieces (in this context it
sounds like the reporter in question wrote an attack piece and didn't disclose
a conflict of interest).

That might actually make for an interesting dinner conversation. What could a
company do to protect itself from attack pieces written as actual journalism.
It's bias masquerading as fact. A possible solution to that might be to
investigate that bias and expose it (if someone writes an article for a
company who has a major investor also invested in a competitor - maybe the
public SHOULD know that, even if it's not disclosed because the writer isn't
really a journalist but is pretending to be one on a blog). In fact, that
shouldn't be too contentious of a position.

The problem was that 1) the quote makes it seem like the Uber Exec somehow
advocated actually doing that (it sounds like he didn't), and 2) It requires
knowing the context (that it's with regards to unethical bloggers who write
biased attack pieces because of a conflict of interest they don't mention and
not applied to ALL journalists). It's a complex point that requires context.
The buzzfeed writer intentionally misrepresented that for clicks, but that's
what buzzfeed does.

~~~
lotsofmangos
If it takes context to know what was said and you are saying that we do not
know the context, how on earth are you making the claim that you know it was
intentionally misrepresented, or in fact misrepresented at all?

For one thing, the response from Uber has not given the indication that this
story was misrepresented, but rather has reinforced its reliability:

\---

 _" I wanted to apologize to you directly — I am sorry. I was at an event and
was venting, but what I said was never intended to describe actions that would
ever be undertaken by me or my company toward you or anyone else. I was
definitively wrong and I feel terrible about any distress I have caused you.
Again, I am sorry."_

\---

 _" The remarks attributed to me at a private dinner — borne out of
frustration during an informal debate over what I feel is sensationalistic
media coverage of the company I am proud to work for — do not reflect my
actual views and have no relation to the company’s views or approach. They
were wrong no matter the circumstance and I regret them."_

\---

There is no indication there that the reporting was false and those quotes are
direct from Emil.

~~~
viscanti
It takes context to know that 1) It was an off the record event and 2) that
previous attack pieces were levied at his company and a reporter baited him
into giving quotes that would sound incendiary without any of the context
(i.e. answering the hypothetical question "how could a company stop biased
attack articles).

The writer neither acknowledges his own conflict of interest nor does he give
any indication that it's an answer to a hypothetical question. The real answer
is that the uber exec isn't going to do anything about the attack pieces
because they haven't done anything about them.

------
imgabe
Who ever would have guessed that Buzzfeed is not the paragon of sober,
responsible journalism that we all thought it was? Next up: 24 things only
people who have had their character assassinated by Buzzfeed will understand.

------
leeber
Imagine if Uber CEO made a comment like Elon Musk did about the "D" in P85D
and having "velcro on the sides of his pants." The media would be ALL OVER
that.

Based on what I've read, Uber CEO sounds like a douchebag. But I'm not really
sure, never met the guy or seen him in person, it's all from stuff read
online.

But clearly the media loves to hate this guy.

------
squozzer
About the article - too little, too late. About Uber - not a big taxi user,
but their idea is intriguing. About the Fourth Estate - sensationalism and
some of the other sins of the press (e.g. coziness to govt, biz) have been
around a while. Remember the Maine, mushroom clouds, Fox and MSNBC, and so far
no real antidote save critical thinking - which isn't easy when untainted
facts are scarce.

------
crystaln
Why would anyone invite a BuzzFeed editor to an off-the-record dinner, and not
expect a sensationalist click-bait article to come of it?

------
methodover
Wow. This whole controversy is interesting only because of how completely
trivial it is. Really? This is what people are upset about? _A comment at
dinner?_

And yet, in spite of it's complete triviality, it's important. Lots of people
will scan their newsfeed and make the connection between Uber and "evil" \--
and that matters.

------
nailer
dang, want to consider re-blocking Buzzfeed as a source? From the actual
quotes in the first article it was obviously never a serious plan as the title
insinuated it was. Now we have this. Someone's name's been trashed here on
Hacker News and they didn't do anything wrong.

------
bravo22
Amazing how money can buy you press to defend yourself.

------
downandout
I am happy to see a first-hand account of this that backs up my understanding
of what actually happened (and am shocked to see it published on HuffPo).
Sadly, this won't get nearly the attention that the original did, because it's
more fun to scream about sexism and threats against children. I'm guessing
that, unlike the target of their story, neither Ben nor Sarah will get a
single letter from the Senate asking why they abused their position in the
media and sensationalized this event to the point of absurdity. Sadder still,
Sarah Lacy will have better ad revenue for the month than she's probably ever
had - from what essentially was a fabrication.

This whole thing was disgusting, as was HN's wholesale acceptance of Sarah
Lacy's nonsense as fact. I expected better.

