6 ms·

An Exxon lobbyist thought he was in a job interview. Instead, it was recorded

77 points by karmanyaahm 5y ago

underseacables 5y ago
Emphasis on the Ex. Reminds me of when the high powered DC attorney Ty Cobb was overheard sitting outside of a restaurant talking quite loudly about confidential matters regarding his representation of Trump. I suppose this is more akin to Project Veritas?
mdorazio 5y ago
Honest question: are these things actually surprising to people? All of the things admitted to seem pretty standard for lobbyists of large companies with less than stellar ethics. That applies to tech companies, too.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  We're in the "feigning shock" stage of the climate disaster. Its where billions of people who've been being told about climate change for decades all pretend they had no idea. Exxon lobbiests are a useful distraction so no one has to think "well I was told this would happen when I was a kid and now I'm 50 and have voted against fixing it, it's happening".
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    The "feigning shock" is whenever any of these climate alarmists are told the majority of the population doesn't see a crisis and simply doesn't care a whole lot. That is what is revealed in this interview and is always met by feigned shock. Study after study reveals that most people don't care a whole lot, and yet always shock must be feigned whenever someone points out that they don't see a crisis.
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      You see apples, I see oranges, but we both agree no preventative action is going to be taken on climate change and that the (vast) majority are happy with that. Fair?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  I've written critiques on the "why are people surprised?" fallacy multiple times, so this time I'll just summarize: Outrage != surprise.
- pera 5y ago
  I was surprised to learn about "shadow groups": I thought all lobbyists were required to be registered, but turns out that's actually not the case in the US.
  - apendleton 5y ago
    They are, but "lobbying" in the Lobbying Disclosure Act is pretty narrowly defined. A fly-by-night Facebook ad operation, or whatever it was that the shadow groups he was talking about were doing, doesn't constitute lobbying under the LDA. Also, if you give money to a nonprofit, and that nonprofit spends its money on lobbyists, it's the nonprofit's identity that's disclosed, not yours, and depending on the kind of nonprofit entity, it might not have to disclose who its funders are.
- burkaman 5y ago
  Strange question, but no, I'm not surprised. Why do you ask? I don't usually read the news in order to be surprised.
- rockemsockem 5y ago
  It's unsurprising to me in the same way that the Snowden leaks were unsurprising, but having something concrete to point to to back up my expectations is useful.
- Simulacra 5y ago
  Recently I watched the film "thank you for smoking" and there's a sign I saw hanging in the background of a scene and it said "be thankful for your government, it's the best that money can buy" and I just thought that was absolutely perfect
0des 5y ago
>Democracy Dies In Darkness In this case, Democracy Dies Behind Paywall. Adding WashingtonPost.com to my [manual] filtering process
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  Keen to hear how you've solved the journalism revenue problem. You must surely be a billionaire!
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    Following my recommendation won't make anyone a billionaire I think but it will give them a chance at some of my leftover money: allow me to buy one issue, or one story or 50 tokens or something. But between two papers, one national broadcaster that costs me n x $100, Netflix, Spotify, supporting Amnesty and Médecins Sans Frontières, my family and my church there isn't room for everyone who want me to subscribe.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > allow me to buy one issue, or one story or 50 tokens or something. The problem with that idea is: 1) it doesn't result in a predictable revenue stream (required for good investigative journalism), and... 2) it incentives click-bait and outrage-bait more than anything else.
      - skinkestek 5y ago
        > it incentives click-bait and outrage-bait more than anything else. Yes. And as I wrote above I don't expect anyone to get rich from it if done according to how I thought it would work. As for avoiding click bait, what blendle did was to offer refunds. I think they later reversed that policy, and I think that was the point I gave them up (also Linux magazines and other stuff I wanted to read never showed up). Still, for someone wanting to be running a decent company, not a unicorn factory I think there is a niche: I actively read very much, even from journalists I deeply disagree with, and I'd rather spend $2 extra a day on good writing than coffe (for instance).
mrandish 5y ago
While promising "gotcha" revelations there's really nothing surprising or even very controversial here. I'm at the end of a many decades long career in high tech ranging from founding multiple startups to spending the last decade reporting to the C-level at a major tech company in the valley. I've participated in the process of hiring high-end firms to do lobbying work. Lobbyists are just another form of salesperson or relationship manager outside of conventional sales. Like hiring PR firms (another form of influence sales), they claim to have done shit they actually didn't do. They may have been there at the time it happened but their causal impact was nowhere near what they claim. Even when not exaggerating to get a job, these people wildly over-estimate their own impact. The headline would more accurately be: "Candidate in competitive job interview for role in influence-sales exaggerates accomplishments and confidently over-promises future results." (Edit to add: I was in a public company. There was no shortage of candidates (both people and firms) willing to at least imply they would or could do some fairly shady shit. We would thank them for their time and never call them back. While they may collect their fee or paycheck, my boss can go to jail and, at best, I'll only get insta-fired for even participating in the selection process, losing all my unvested options, no one-year severance/benefits. The downside cost of even being near shady shit in a high-profile successful public company is personally catastrophic in the millions of dollars and a reputation hit to the company that wipes billions off our market cap overnight - and it only has to be the slightest bit true. Sure, you might get away with sleazy shit and get ahead one time. BUT it's not a reliably repeatable pattern and big public companies are built on real revenue and results over time. It's no different than PR. There are sleazy media outlets and/or journalists who can be unfairly influenced for $$$ but they tend to be minor league and not very valuable. At most, spending a lot on effective lobbying or PR gets you access to make your case. And often, you can spend a ton and not even get that much.)
- autokad 5y ago
  there's also the poor ethics of greenpeace lying about a job interview as well as releasing that content. way to stay classy greenpeace. Also pretty sure that's illegal in many countries.
  - gruez 5y ago
VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
I have to question whether or not this recording was legal. I don't know first-hand what UK's surreptitious recording laws are, but according to this website[0]: > In the United Kingdom, all parties are required to be notified and give consent regarding recordings. The only exceptions are if the person making the recording can guarantee that it won’t be shared with third parties, and that it is being recorded either to collect evidence/prevent possible crime or to prove regulatory compliance. Several USA states have "all party consent" laws as well. Namely California, Florida, and some others. So where were the Greenpeace people located, and where was McCoy located? Because this sounds like a felony to me. > Industry codes for British broadcasters and newspaper are more permissive than U.S. publications, according to Glenda Cooper, a senior journalism lecturer at City, University of London. Intrusions such as an undercover recording can be seen as a last resort for information deemed to be in the public interest. "It is seen as part of the investigative journalist’s tool kit, if it can be justified,” she said. “It’s not the first thing that you do." Does Greenpeace get to decide what's legal and what's not in the UK? I don't really care about this one way or another, I'm just interested in the legality of this recording and subsequent release in the first place. [0] https://getvoip.com/blog/2020/07/14/call-recording-laws/ https://getvoip.com/blog/2020/07/14/call-recording-laws/
- aaomidi 5y ago
  > I don't really care about this one way or another, I'm just interested in the legality of this recording and subsequent release in the first place. Really odd thing to focus on.
  - VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
    not really. You think it's OK for someone to lure you to a "job interview" under false pretenses so they can secretly record you getting grilled about your current employer's business practices and then release that information to the public? Or only if it's a scummy company so that's OK and definitely not illegal.
    - handrous 5y ago
solarkraft 5y ago
Thanks for editorializing the title to make it less outrageous. “Instead it was a secretly recorded Zoom call.” provokes the image that they thought they were at an (in person) job interview, while it was actually a Zoom call. Irritating, because the job interview would also have been on Zoom. They weren’t surprised to find themselves in a Zoom call.
- karmanyaahm 5y ago
  I had to cut it because of the character limit that hackernews has (https://emojipedia.org/grinning-face-with-sweat/ https://emojipedia.org/grinning-face-with-sweat/ hn blocks emoji apparently) but thanks
pksebben 5y ago
I see a lot of comments discussing the legitimacy of the investigative technique, and whether "lobbyists being lobbyists" is bad. For those of us who agree that lobbying sucks and that Greenpeace is fighting a worthy fight, I want to start the conversation towards: what do we do with this? So, not in the abstract, what can you, the tech savvy HN reader, and the rest of us, do about this kind of stuff? I know that taking a study like this and amplifying it's signal is one positive, actionable thing (I've forwarded the article to a group of folks I know have active presence in places where it could matter). I'm curious as to what you all do to fight against [ shitty lobbyists, busted democracy, climate change ] that might be unintuitive to others? Specifically, I'm not asking whether these things are worth fighting for. There's enough discussion about that. Just for those of us who see the problems; wat do?
- exo-pla-net 5y ago
  You can, on a local level, push for the American Anti-Corruption Act. "In cities and states across the country, citizens are using a piece of model legislation called the American Anti-Corruption Act to root out conflicts of interest and corruption where they live. Time and again, history has seen laws passed at the city and state level make it all the way to Washington and turn into federal law. Local Anti-Corruption Acts and Resolutions build momentum towards national reform, since politicians running an anti-corruption platform seed Congress with representatives, not pre-purchased by special interests." https://represent.us/action/is-lobbying-good-or-bad/ https://represent.us/action/is-lobbying-good-or-bad/
  - pksebben 5y ago
    I love the work that represent.us does. This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. I remember reading Republic, Lost years ago. it's good to see action plans around that material.

77 points by karmanyaahm 5y ago

Emphasis on the Ex. Reminds me of when the high powered DC attorney Ty Cobb was overheard sitting outside of a restaurant talking quite loudly about confidential matters regarding his representation of Trump. I suppose this is more akin to Project Veritas?

mdorazio 5y ago

Honest question: are these things actually surprising to people? All of the things admitted to seem pretty standard for lobbyists of large companies with less than stellar ethics. That applies to tech companies, too.

LatteLazy 5y ago
We're in the "feigning shock" stage of the climate disaster. Its where billions of people who've been being told about climate change for decades all pretend they had no idea. Exxon lobbiests are a useful distraction so no one has to think "well I was told this would happen when I was a kid and now I'm 50 and have voted against fixing it, it's happening".
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  The "feigning shock" is whenever any of these climate alarmists are told the majority of the population doesn't see a crisis and simply doesn't care a whole lot. That is what is revealed in this interview and is always met by feigned shock. Study after study reveals that most people don't care a whole lot, and yet always shock must be feigned whenever someone points out that they don't see a crisis.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    You see apples, I see oranges, but we both agree no preventative action is going to be taken on climate change and that the (vast) majority are happy with that. Fair?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
happytoexplain 5y ago
I've written critiques on the "why are people surprised?" fallacy multiple times, so this time I'll just summarize: Outrage != surprise.
pera 5y ago
I was surprised to learn about "shadow groups": I thought all lobbyists were required to be registered, but turns out that's actually not the case in the US.
- apendleton 5y ago
  They are, but "lobbying" in the Lobbying Disclosure Act is pretty narrowly defined. A fly-by-night Facebook ad operation, or whatever it was that the shadow groups he was talking about were doing, doesn't constitute lobbying under the LDA. Also, if you give money to a nonprofit, and that nonprofit spends its money on lobbyists, it's the nonprofit's identity that's disclosed, not yours, and depending on the kind of nonprofit entity, it might not have to disclose who its funders are.
burkaman 5y ago
Strange question, but no, I'm not surprised. Why do you ask? I don't usually read the news in order to be surprised.
rockemsockem 5y ago
It's unsurprising to me in the same way that the Snowden leaks were unsurprising, but having something concrete to point to to back up my expectations is useful.
Simulacra 5y ago
Recently I watched the film "thank you for smoking" and there's a sign I saw hanging in the background of a scene and it said "be thankful for your government, it's the best that money can buy" and I just thought that was absolutely perfect

0des 5y ago

>Democracy Dies In Darkness In this case, Democracy Dies Behind Paywall. Adding WashingtonPost.com to my [manual] filtering process

scoopertrooper 5y ago
Keen to hear how you've solved the journalism revenue problem. You must surely be a billionaire!
- skinkestek 5y ago
  Following my recommendation won't make anyone a billionaire I think but it will give them a chance at some of my leftover money: allow me to buy one issue, or one story or 50 tokens or something. But between two papers, one national broadcaster that costs me n x $100, Netflix, Spotify, supporting Amnesty and Médecins Sans Frontières, my family and my church there isn't room for everyone who want me to subscribe.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > allow me to buy one issue, or one story or 50 tokens or something. The problem with that idea is: 1) it doesn't result in a predictable revenue stream (required for good investigative journalism), and... 2) it incentives click-bait and outrage-bait more than anything else.
    - skinkestek 5y ago
      > it incentives click-bait and outrage-bait more than anything else. Yes. And as I wrote above I don't expect anyone to get rich from it if done according to how I thought it would work. As for avoiding click bait, what blendle did was to offer refunds. I think they later reversed that policy, and I think that was the point I gave them up (also Linux magazines and other stuff I wanted to read never showed up). Still, for someone wanting to be running a decent company, not a unicorn factory I think there is a niche: I actively read very much, even from journalists I deeply disagree with, and I'd rather spend $2 extra a day on good writing than coffe (for instance).

mrandish 5y ago

While promising "gotcha" revelations there's really nothing surprising or even very controversial here. I'm at the end of a many decades long career in high tech ranging from founding multiple startups to spending the last decade reporting to the C-level at a major tech company in the valley. I've participated in the process of hiring high-end firms to do lobbying work. Lobbyists are just another form of salesperson or relationship manager outside of conventional sales. Like hiring PR firms (another form of influence sales), they claim to have done shit they actually didn't do. They may have been there at the time it happened but their causal impact was nowhere near what they claim. Even when not exaggerating to get a job, these people wildly over-estimate their own impact. The headline would more accurately be: "Candidate in competitive job interview for role in influence-sales exaggerates accomplishments and confidently over-promises future results." (Edit to add: I was in a public company. There was no shortage of candidates (both people and firms) willing to at least imply they would or could do some fairly shady shit. We would thank them for their time and never call them back. While they may collect their fee or paycheck, my boss can go to jail and, at best, I'll only get insta-fired for even participating in the selection process, losing all my unvested options, no one-year severance/benefits. The downside cost of even being near shady shit in a high-profile successful public company is personally catastrophic in the millions of dollars and a reputation hit to the company that wipes billions off our market cap overnight - and it only has to be the slightest bit true. Sure, you might get away with sleazy shit and get ahead one time. BUT it's not a reliably repeatable pattern and big public companies are built on real revenue and results over time. It's no different than PR. There are sleazy media outlets and/or journalists who can be unfairly influenced for $$$ but they tend to be minor league and not very valuable. At most, spending a lot on effective lobbying or PR gets you access to make your case. And often, you can spend a ton and not even get that much.)

autokad 5y ago
there's also the poor ethics of greenpeace lying about a job interview as well as releasing that content. way to stay classy greenpeace. Also pretty sure that's illegal in many countries.
- gruez 5y ago

VWWHFSfQ 5y ago

I have to question whether or not this recording was legal. I don't know first-hand what UK's surreptitious recording laws are, but according to this website[0]: > In the United Kingdom, all parties are required to be notified and give consent regarding recordings. The only exceptions are if the person making the recording can guarantee that it won’t be shared with third parties, and that it is being recorded either to collect evidence/prevent possible crime or to prove regulatory compliance. Several USA states have "all party consent" laws as well. Namely California, Florida, and some others. So where were the Greenpeace people located, and where was McCoy located? Because this sounds like a felony to me. > Industry codes for British broadcasters and newspaper are more permissive than U.S. publications, according to Glenda Cooper, a senior journalism lecturer at City, University of London. Intrusions such as an undercover recording can be seen as a last resort for information deemed to be in the public interest. "It is seen as part of the investigative journalist’s tool kit, if it can be justified,” she said. “It’s not the first thing that you do." Does Greenpeace get to decide what's legal and what's not in the UK? I don't really care about this one way or another, I'm just interested in the legality of this recording and subsequent release in the first place. [0] https://getvoip.com/blog/2020/07/14/call-recording-laws/ https://getvoip.com/blog/2020/07/14/call-recording-laws/

aaomidi 5y ago
> I don't really care about this one way or another, I'm just interested in the legality of this recording and subsequent release in the first place. Really odd thing to focus on.
- VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
  not really. You think it's OK for someone to lure you to a "job interview" under false pretenses so they can secretly record you getting grilled about your current employer's business practices and then release that information to the public? Or only if it's a scummy company so that's OK and definitely not illegal.
  - handrous 5y ago

solarkraft 5y ago

Thanks for editorializing the title to make it less outrageous. “Instead it was a secretly recorded Zoom call.” provokes the image that they thought they were at an (in person) job interview, while it was actually a Zoom call. Irritating, because the job interview would also have been on Zoom. They weren’t surprised to find themselves in a Zoom call.

karmanyaahm 5y ago
I had to cut it because of the character limit that hackernews has (https://emojipedia.org/grinning-face-with-sweat/ https://emojipedia.org/grinning-face-with-sweat/ hn blocks emoji apparently) but thanks

pksebben 5y ago

I see a lot of comments discussing the legitimacy of the investigative technique, and whether "lobbyists being lobbyists" is bad. For those of us who agree that lobbying sucks and that Greenpeace is fighting a worthy fight, I want to start the conversation towards: what do we do with this? So, not in the abstract, what can you, the tech savvy HN reader, and the rest of us, do about this kind of stuff? I know that taking a study like this and amplifying it's signal is one positive, actionable thing (I've forwarded the article to a group of folks I know have active presence in places where it could matter). I'm curious as to what you all do to fight against [ shitty lobbyists, busted democracy, climate change ] that might be unintuitive to others? Specifically, I'm not asking whether these things are worth fighting for. There's enough discussion about that. Just for those of us who see the problems; wat do?

exo-pla-net 5y ago
You can, on a local level, push for the American Anti-Corruption Act. "In cities and states across the country, citizens are using a piece of model legislation called the American Anti-Corruption Act to root out conflicts of interest and corruption where they live. Time and again, history has seen laws passed at the city and state level make it all the way to Washington and turn into federal law. Local Anti-Corruption Acts and Resolutions build momentum towards national reform, since politicians running an anti-corruption platform seed Congress with representatives, not pre-purchased by special interests." https://represent.us/action/is-lobbying-good-or-bad/ https://represent.us/action/is-lobbying-good-or-bad/
- pksebben 5y ago
  I love the work that represent.us does. This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. I remember reading Republic, Lost years ago. it's good to see action plans around that material.