What Was Said at the Uber Dinner

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicole-campbell/what-was-said-at-the-uber_b_6198250.html

by viscanti • 12 years ago

151 110 12 years ago

DigitalSea3• 12 years ago

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.

mcphage• 12 years ago

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?

But isn't the only reason you know those facts because she did disclose them? Like, right there in that line you quoted?

DigitalSea3• 12 years ago

No.

The article would have held more credibility in my eyes if she was upfront about the fact there was a conflict of interest before continuing on with the article. Heck, even an article on the likes of Techcrunch with even a remote tinge of conflict of interest is disclosed in the first paragraph before you get into the article contents. I legitimately feel misled, I was to feel as though I was reading an impartial account of what happened that night only to be told at the end that the account was from a friend nonetheless.

Lets be honest, in most cases, a friend will always defend another friend regardless of the context or the situation. It is rare that a friend will throw another under the bus, especially in a situation like this. This is why everything Nicole says is hearsay because she could easily be exaggerating what she thought she heard all for the sake of defending her friend. We do not even know for certain if Nicole heard anything to do with what happened, we were offered no new bits of information we did not already have.

dkrich5• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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

lotsofmangos9• 12 years ago

My experience of cabbies has been pretty good. Then again, I usually make sure that I have cash in my wallet to pay for them before embarking or ask them to find a cashpoint on the way.

If they have working card machines, they often lose signal or are being slow and expense departments are perfectly capable of dealing with cabbie receipts.

sliverstorm• 12 years ago

It was like four-and-a-half paragraphs. The author didn't "hide" the note about her connection to Emil at the end of a twenty-page snoozefest. Seems like plenty sufficient disclosure to me.

waterlesscloud5• 12 years ago

The proper thing to do is to disclose it right at the start since it obviously colors the whole report.

ephemeralgomi2• 12 years ago

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?

She did! You quoted it in your post!

DigitalSea3• 12 years ago

Yes Nicole did, right at the end of her article. As I mentioned in another reply, even sites like Techcrunch who are no strangers to half-baked journalism themselves disclose conflicts of interest at the beginning of their articles. It is misleading in my opinion.

ddrmaxgt37• 12 years ago

ad hominem

colbyh• 12 years ago

I'm a personal friend of Nicole and it didn't strike me as odd. She doesn't have a dishonest bone in her body, really. I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't even register that people might find her prior friendship to be a conflict of interest.

Not saying it wouldn't have been helpful up front, but the message is still valid IMO. Understandably I'm a bit biased for the author, but I'm also not the biggest Uber fan so if that helps...

frostmatthew2• 12 years ago

I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't even register that people might find her prior friendship to be a conflict of interest.

If that were the case she wouldn't have mentioned it at all.

philsnow• 12 years ago

The trouble with the order the article was presented in, is that it buries the lede (the lede here being that the author has a very significant personal bias, which can color the reader's perspective of the rest of the article).

The author chose (subconsciously or not, strategically or not) to defer mention of that important fact to the end, by which point many readers will have already given up reading. It is a fact that people pay more attention to the beginning of an article and that a significant proportion of people fall off the end and don't finish.

rayiner5• 12 years ago

Emil said what he said, this article even confirms that.

Here's my big problem with all this: nobody defending this guy is saying "no, he didn't say that," or "no, he was joking," or even, "no, it was taken out of context." They're saying, essentially, that he wouldn't have disclosed his internal thought process if he knew it would be made public. I definitely wouldn't want one of my jokes or hypotheticals to be quoted out of context. But what I don't get is staying stuff you actually mean and then getting upset that people call you an asshole for thinking and believing the things you actually think and believe.

emiliobumachar• 12 years ago

From the article:

"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.

There was no anti-feminist sentiment, no attacking families, no attacking children, no anger, no threats against anyone, no action plan. Nothing. It was clear to me that this was all a vague, civilized conversation. I am a woman and I am sensitive to any kind of talk like that. "

(my emphasis.)

I don't know whether she's telling the truth, but she's definitely saying "no, he didn't say that" to the most grave things he's been accused of saying.

downandout4• 12 years ago

I am not trying to say that the original story by Ben wasn't sensationalist, but it wasn't a fabricated lie either

Is it not a fabrication when you take something that was clearly a hypothetical statement and report it as if you overheard it at a strategy meeting? Both Ben and Sarah's stories represented that this wasn't a hypothetical, but rather a plan that would be carried out against Sarah and her children immediately.

IMO, that is a fabrication.

waterlesscloud5• 12 years ago

"take something that was clearly a hypothetical statement and report it as if you overheard it at a strategy meeting?"

No one has done this.

andrep• 12 years ago

Conflict of interest? What about the desire to break a story (and make your career) vs reporting what actually happened without sensationalising it?

applecore• 12 years ago

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/...

badusername• 12 years ago

And many others: http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/20/buzzfeeds-ben-smith-plays-...

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.

dkrich5• 12 years ago

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.

jackmaney2• 12 years ago

Is it just me, or does Uber's CEO seem incredibly naive to think that any conversation with a journalist would ever be taken as "off the record"?

waterlesscloud5• 12 years ago

At one point in the distant past, my email somehow got added to the list of a person who hosted dinner parties in Manhattan which had the explicit purpose of mixing journalists and politicians for evenings of "off-the-record" discussions. A number of names on the list were people you could see on TV news several times a week.

I'd get the invitations and there would be topics and guests, much like the Uber CEO, who would be sort of the center of attention. The emails all stressed the off-the-record nature, the idea was to get everyone able to know each other a little better.

I've got mixed feelings about that. Obviously it could make reporter and reportee a bit too cozy with each other. On the other hand, I can see how remembering conversations over chardonnay and cheese would also make access a lot smoother when needed. And the reporters would know where the people they were reporting on were coming from, which is useful even if they don't print it.

tl;dr- These parties happen all the time and stay off record.

mikey_p• 12 years ago

Does it bother anyone else that 1) he led off the article with praise for Uber 2) he was comfortable going to a dinner (assumingly paid for by Uber) that was off the record, but still with the intent to impress him?

What the hell happened to journalism?

cousin_it3• 12 years ago

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.

calbear81• 12 years ago

I don't think that's true.

There are many instances in which we as a society have chosen disproportionate responses as a way to deter future infractions by others thinking about doing the same thing. Think about penalties doled out to corporations for bad behavior and/or when juries award large damages in cases of wrongful death from the police or what not.

peterwwillis• 12 years ago

The only time the first example is disproportionate is when we fine corporations too little for their abuses, and that is never good.

edit The damages you discuss are punitive damages, but again are not intended to be disproportionate; they are intended to be proportionate in a way that is an adequate remedy to the basis of a lawsuit (when compensatory damages won't work). Great judicial restraint is expected to be exercised in their application.

Justice should always be proportionate. Sadly, there is often too little justice served in our society, and too much abuse, as evidenced by people defending disproportionate justice.

grey-area• 12 years ago

And yet in between the infractions and the punishment, however extreme, comes a system of justice based on laws, presumption of innocence, and equality before the law. An imperfect system, but at least one which aspires to impartiality and justice.

The parent is objecting to replacing that justice system with mob justice (which is usually disproportionate, harmful to everyone involved, and often just plain wrong).

forrestthewoods• 12 years ago

I generally oppose all witch hunts as a matter of principal. Even if the person actually did something wrong the damage done by enabling a pitch fork wielding mob is far worse than whatever thing was done by a single person.

joelrunyon• 12 years ago

This. Plus every witch hunt enables the next witch hunt by serving as a reference point & rationalization for extreme reaction.

lotsofmangos9• 12 years ago

I guess the counterpoint to that might be the events surrounding the downfall of Nicolae Ceaușescu. Not just the jeering mob that let the facade of power slip, but also the army switching sides thinking the defense chief had been murdered when he had in fact committed suicide.

edit - Am meaning it more as an exception that proves the point. Someone really has to be nasty on the scale of Ceaușescu before forming a badly informed mob can be a good idea.

lotsofmangos9• 12 years ago

Are you sure that is what people consider the most important question? I haven't noticed any pitchforks, no warming buckets of tar and chickens being plucked, just people deleting the app.

freshflowers• 12 years ago

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_it3• 12 years ago

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.

philwelch2• 12 years ago

It's a witchhunt if it's merely an accusation without evidence.

Accusations without evidence are made all the time without turning into a witch hunt. It's an element of "mob justice" and disproportionality that makes for a witch hunt, not whether or not the allegations are true. For instance, McCarthyism was a witch hunt, even though historical evidence now available to us proves there was widespread Communist infiltration of the government and media and that many of the individuals persecuted at the time were, indeed, Communists or Communist sympathizers.

downandout4• 12 years ago

You can't have justice if your mechanism of justice isn't proportionate

The people bashing Uber over this story were mostly the same people that have always bashed Uber. They weren't looking for justice over this particular event, and it was obvious that many didn't actually read the absurdly written story that started this whole thing. They simply saw a mob that agreed with their dislike for Uber and joined it.

fleitz• 12 years ago

A witchhunt would be inappropriate, however mob justice meated out by people not privy to the conversation is well within reason.

lotsofmangos9• 12 years ago

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.

wakemc2• 12 years ago

"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?

lotsofmangos9• 12 years ago

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.

bravo22• 12 years ago

Amazing how money can buy you press to defend yourself.

downandout4• 12 years ago

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.

leeber• 12 years ago

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.

mc324• 12 years ago

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.

alexqgb4• 12 years ago

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.

nailer3• 12 years ago

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?

mc324• 12 years ago

If that's what is was, yes, i'd be a problem. But it appears, from this witness, it was not. So let's suppose this witness is a good witness.

In some cultures it's natural to only say things out loud that one has thought of 'thoughtfully'. In others you say a lot out loud but without meaning much.

Just imagine a conversation between two sorority sisters or two fraternity brothers. They can have some pretty horrible things they say about other people --it's quite disgusting; I've overheard them. Would it be fair to bring those conversations up later in life, or as they're being considered for a job? should those conversations be "wrong"?

I'd rather people be free to have all kinds of nasty thoughts --but provide disincentive upon acting them out --not just thinking them.

Another question. Now, let's say said reporter might say something under her breath to confidants. Let's suppose she's happy to see some unraveling, and let's suppose the reporter/journalist even says some hyperbolic things --should such a reporter now be attacked for expressing such feelings? People are people and I think should be free to feel enmity against others --we can't pretend we like everyone out there.

zorpner• 12 years ago

It's as if we'll all have to censor our thoughts before pronouncing them.

Thinking about the consequences of your speech before speaking aloud is almost literally the least people can do as a part of society. No one except the absurdly privileged could think that they somehow have any kind of right to consequence-free speech.

rayiner5• 12 years ago

This does not seem to be a situation where purely hypothetical comments were taken out of context, but rather one where someone is being criticized for what serious hypotheticals revealed about their through process and beliefs. Yes, it's fair to criticize someone for what they think and believe, or what their comments, taken in context, indicate about what they think and believe.

alexqgb4• 12 years ago

As Ben Johnson so famously said "Language most shows a man, speak that I may see thee."

king_jester• 12 years ago

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.

Here's the thing. As someone who hears that conversation, I can't tell if you are just running your mouth or serious. Moreover, for someone who could feel unsafe in a space because of that, they can't tell if they really are safe or not. Lastly, if things like gamer gate show us anything, there are a whole host of people who will act on what you say when they hear it and hearing those things reaffirms their worldview and actions. Making idle jokes or claims about harassing a someone isn't appropriate.

imgabe• 12 years ago

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.

nailer3• 12 years ago

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.

squozzer• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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.

What Was Said at the Uber Dinner

Related Stories