3 ms·

No one has an "off-the-record" event and invites people from the media. Just saying.

• derwiki 12y ago
  Which leads to the more interesting question: what is the angle to be played from leaking this?
  • drivingmenuts 12y ago
    Maybe it's about shedding light on the pyschopaths that are running Uber?
  • rhizome 12y ago
    I think the angle might occur earlier in the process. Saying something like this to a crowd containing journalists gives them initial targets when they see who writes about the story. That is, it's not so much that they could, it's that maybe it starts now.
  • snowwrestler 12y ago
    Pageviews.
• kylebrussell 12y ago
  This is totally inaccurate. Members of the press are invited to off the record events all the time.
  • ProAm 12y ago
    You are 100% correct and the people inviting you know there is a slim chance everything heard will stay on the down low.
    • 001sky 12y ago
      Not true at all. POTUS does a lot of off the record or background briefings. Its legit, mainstream media culture. "White House background briefings: Good journalism or anonymous government spin?" http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/white-house-background-briefings-good-journalism-or-anonymous-government-spin/2014/11/06/c4a45b58-65d3-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/white-house-ba... This is all 'don't quote me on this' stuff. Attaching names to quotes in these situations is condisered unethical. Seems no different from an ethics perspectiv e than other types of "off the record" commenting (ie, "you can reveal X but not Y). But maybe somebody can school us (all) on the finer points here if we're reading it wrong.
      • alexqgb 12y ago
        BuzzFeedBen was very careful about noting that the organizers failed to indicate that the evening's remarks would be off the record, and that's a point Uber has (wisely) chosen not to dispute. Meaning everything said was fair game. In other words, Ben was clearly signaling that his other sources could remain confident that he respects the known and accepted rules of engagement, and that he will continue to do so. However, he will not let a genuine scoop slide by if some high-profile idiot gets up in front of a room with heavy duty media people in it and (drunkenly?) talks — in excruciating detail — about how he'd spend $1 million in company funds to go about personally violating journalists who wrote negative things about his company. I say "drunkenly" because I have no other explanation for a compound failure of judgement this cosmically bad.
        • 001sky 12y ago
          Unethical douchebag reports about unethical douchebag. --Seems to be the cliffs note version
          • alexqgb 12y ago
            The problem with your version is that it establishes a degree of equivalency between the players that in no way reflects the actual situation. Cliff's Notes are distillations, not distortions. Big difference.
            • 001sky 12y ago
              Maybe you could elucidate this more clearly. I think its quite correct. (Also, if humor is not your forte, I'm sorry).
              • alexqgb 12y ago
                I wasn't trying to be funny. I was pointing out that it's out of line to accuse BuzzFeedBen of being unethical when he was doing straight and fully by-the-book public interest journalism.