4 ms·

In my opinion someone in such a high up role in a high profile company like Uber who have had their fair share of bad publicity and controversies should know be

In my opinion someone in such a high up role in a high profile company like Uber who have had their fair share of bad publicity and controversies should know better. Having worked for the White House as a senior advisor, Emil Michael of all people should know the importance of being careful what you say in public, whether it be on or off the record. While it is possible what he said was taken out of context slightly, the fact anything was said along these lines paints the picture of someone who should not be in business. What company does NOT have bad things said about them? We all live in a free country where journalists are entitled to their opinions just as much as everyone else including Mr. Michael. But the harsh reality is people in positions of influence or power whether it be a company or political party do not have such luxury, such is the case for Emil. Sure Emil's views might not reflect Uber as a company, but because of his position, it comes back on the company. This is the kind of stuff that competitors of Uber can only dream of. Emil has made Uber look bad by association, in the eyes of the public, Uber might as well have released a press statement themselves with the same words. I would not be surprised if action is taken against him for this, Uber cannot really afford any more controversy.

gavanwoolery 12y ago
Thanks, really well put - I agree. :) Also, just wanted to add, I'm not concerned about journalistic opinions - that is protected by free speech. The only area where I consider such things harmful is where opinions effect things they should not, and objectivity is not used in the right places. What you are "free" to say, and what you should say in terms of being a good reporter are, of course, two different things. An example I've seen used a lot recently was where some reporter gave a pretty good game a low score because he thought it did not portray females strongly enough. I don't read game reviews to hear about political soap-boxing (even though I am pro-equality). In the same way, I like to read about companies on the basis of their actions, or in the case of their official policies, their words - I'm sure many of us have made some comment that we look back on like "what was I thinking?" -- this sort of "gossip" reporting does not do it for me in that respect. Again, I stress that even in light of this, the VP does not seem like a good person in my book, but I won't let that effect my view of the rest of the company (Uber is doing a pretty good job of hurting its own image regardless ;) )

gavanwoolery 12y ago

Thanks, really well put - I agree. :) Also, just wanted to add, I'm not concerned about journalistic opinions - that is protected by free speech. The only area where I consider such things harmful is where opinions effect things they should not, and objectivity is not used in the right places. What you are "free" to say, and what you should say in terms of being a good reporter are, of course, two different things. An example I've seen used a lot recently was where some reporter gave a pretty good game a low score because he thought it did not portray females strongly enough. I don't read game reviews to hear about political soap-boxing (even though I am pro-equality). In the same way, I like to read about companies on the basis of their actions, or in the case of their official policies, their words - I'm sure many of us have made some comment that we look back on like "what was I thinking?" -- this sort of "gossip" reporting does not do it for me in that respect. Again, I stress that even in light of this, the VP does not seem like a good person in my book, but I won't let that effect my view of the rest of the company (Uber is doing a pretty good job of hurting its own image regardless ;) )