6 ms·
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 intenti
by lotsofmangos 12y ago
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 12y agoIt 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.