"The problem wasn’t just that a representative of a powerful corporation was contemplating opposition research on reporters..." The Uber corporation did no suc

"The problem wasn’t just that a representative of a powerful corporation was contemplating opposition research on reporters..." The Uber corporation did no such thing, and the executive involved wasn't "contemplating" anything. This individual executive made a colossally stupid, hypothetical statement during a rant at a party about what he would like to do to a self-declared enemy of the company that happened to be a member of the media (a term I use loosely in this case). This rant was reported to Sarah Lacy (the target of the hypothetical), who, smelling opportunity, then wrote a blog post about how Uber had hitmen hunting her children while they slept in their pajamas (seriously, she actually talked about the danger they were in while they slept in their pajamas). Of course, when interviewed about it on Bloomberg West, Sarah Lacy was certain that this was a "plan" and not a hypothetical, but could produce no evidence of any actions taken or pinpoint any harm that befell her or her sleeping children. NYT is a little late on this one, but given the nice revenue pop that Sarah Lacy's wild exaggeration of the story must have brought, I can see why they are trying to beat this dead horse. Sadly, this story has about as much significance as the original.