I solemnly swear not to (over)use and abuse this hashtag on a weekly basis. Essentially, I just needed to publish this article so that it would be easy to refer to when replying to a tweet.
Also, this isn’t a subtle commentary on today’s congressional hearing. I only caught a part of it in between my pre-scheduled webinars, so I wouldn’t dare.
This recent article showed up on my timeline. And #6 struck a chord because I wrote an entire op-ed on #6 back in 2017. Surprisingly (or not), it wasn’t accepted by any publications I submitted it to — maybe I shouldn’t have included a suggested heading when emailing editors? (Do they generally frown upon that?)
…or maybe I shouldn’t have come up with this specific heading. Although, in retrospect, ‘The Modern American Witch Hunt’ summed things up quite well.
Full text below. I resisted the urge to edit and improve it, so feel free to ignore imperfections. Or send in advance a trigger warning by registered post before you point out any mistakes or inaccuracies (because apparently, that’s what’s required these days)
The Modern American Witch Hunt
There was a time when distortion and mishandling of information used to be considered an unforgivable offence in the field of journalism. Every single aspect of a story had to be explored and analyzed, leaving no room for speculation. Things have drastically changed since then.
Somewhere along the way reporting a story became storytelling -- and every story needs a villain. This need eventually became the basis of not only reframing every argument to make a story more compelling, but also ignoring any facts deemed inconvenient -- and in some cases, dismissing these facts altogether.
The past few months of media coverage, which essentially can only be described as smear campaign, contained a string of attacks and accusations directed at Uber and its former CEO Travis Kalanick, making no effort to consider the background of many issues. Below is my attempt to shine the light on every aspect of Uber’s most controversial “missteps”.
In response to the newly implemented travel ban in January 2017, NY Taxi Workers Alliance initiated a strike during one of the busiest times at JFK. Which can be estimated, by some, as a minor emergency. Uber didn’t want people to be stranded, therefore it turned off surge pricing.
Media widely criticised Uber for this move, but the confusing part is this: Uber was being criticised for trying to make a profit off the strike. Seeing how there were no alternatives, people would still likely decide to get a car even at a highly increased rate. Because that’s what you do after a long flight.
So… how did turning OFF surge pricing initiate such allegation?
If the notion behind it was that when such important protests are taking place no one should accidentally “interfere”, even by providing their regular services, there are two major problems with this idea. Number one: forcing a business to take a side in a political protest, or criticizing it for not providing support, can be easily considered a harassment. This should never happen in a democratic society. Number two: ultimately the decision whether or not to take part in a political protest (in any way, shape, or form) should lie with each and every one of us. Uber made themselves available, but nobody was forcing anyone to request a ride when taxi workers were on strike. It’s good old free will.
#DeleteUber was essentially conceived by people who, instead of supporting their political beliefs by actually helping whomever they're “advocating” for, decided to scapegoat a third party. Brilliant move which requires zero effort yet makes them look good. Evidently they feel like they’re making a real change in the world by posting a self-righteous, clueless tweet.
What makes #DeleteUber even more hypocritical is that Lyft too continued to pick up passengers from JFK during the protest -- as confirmed by Lyft spokeswoman herself. Yet many of them concentrated solely on Uber’s “mistake”, simultaneously claiming their newfound devotion to Lyft.
In fact, upon looking into it, overpraising Lyft has very little basis.
In March 2017, The Guardian published an article titled “Is Lyft really the ‘woke’ alternative to Uber?” written by Olivia Solon. It’s a great reference point if you’re interested in looking into concrete data behind Lyft’s alleged ethical superiority. Namely, it cited doubts about Lyft being more inclusive of minorities. Two months later when Lyft finally released its diversity report, it turned out that compared to Uber their overall figures are actually worse.
While Uber has been condemned for treating drivers as independent contractors and eventually forced to change their status in NY by a labour judge, Lyft scored a settlement in San Francisco. The difference in treatment of two competitors in a court of law is a direct reflection of the difference in treatment in the media.
The fact that Travis Kalanick actually spoke out against the ban and outlined support available to Uber drivers who were affected flew completely under the radar. At best, it was reported like it meant absolutely nothing.
Susan Fowler’s blog post, which condemned Uber’s corporate culture and accused Uber of sexism, left me feeling unsettled. While there is little doubt that the man making advances through a company chat was in the wrong, the confusing part is why Ms. Fowler failed to try and defuse the situation herself first, before involving HR (i.e., politely telling him she wasn’t interested). If he persisted, she could easily report him.
I was also wondering why Ms. Fowler wouldn’t publish the screenshots she took (I’m not the first one; there are comments below her post requesting the same. There was no response or update). It might actually make sense if the reason she reported her manager straight away was that these messages were disturbing, intimidating or threatening in nature rather than just inappropriate. But this data was concealed, which sadly diminishes Ms. Fowler’s credibility.
This no-warning approach Ms. Fowler received so much praise for may easily create an obstacle to achieving gender equality in the workplace. While the man in question is later revealed to be flagged by many other female employees, company executives are likely to wonder what happens in a similar situation when they receive a complaint against someone who was, in fact, committing their “first offence” (which in some cases can be reduced to misinterpreting something the other person had said, their body language, etc) and are forced to rearrange their employees’ roles or let someone go. Male employees might refrain from getting involved in a team where they fear they won't get any warning should a genuine misunderstanding occur; meanwhile the executives will be forced to re-evaluate offering any positions to women in an environment where collaboration is key to achieving results, and reassigning someone in the middle of a project is not an option.
It would be very unfair. It would also be completely understandable from a business perspective.
And no one is ever going to talk about these concerns openly, because the public will tear them apart.
Result? Battle won, war lost.
Ms. Fowler is a talented, accomplished woman, and I’m certain she will have a very successful career.
But those of us who are at the very beginning will certainly experience these long-lasting consequences.
Finally, we need to talk about semantics. Or at least what media decided to refer to as an argument, while in reality it was one person making repeated statements and ignoring whatever the other person has to say.
It’s remarkable how, even though the original video is posted on YouTube for everyone to see, the media would go ahead and report it with headlines such as “Uber CEO Caught on Video Berating Company Driver” (WSJ), “Uber CEO caught on tape yelling at driver” (ABC), “Uber CEO Travis Kalanick caught on video arguing with driver about fares” (The Guardian) -- well, at least the latter reduced “yelling” to “arguing”.
Sidenote: according to Merraim-Webster (yes, I went there), berating means “to scold or condemn vehemently and at length”. Seeing how Kalanick only snapped at the very end, even if he did yell (which he didn’t), that term still wouldn’t be accurate.
I genuinely began to wonder if there were two completely different recordings out there,
because the one I watched depicted the following:
Driver starts a conversation with Kalanick
Driver mentions how fares keep changing
Kalanick tries to explain, in calm and collected manner, why the changes have been made
Driver refuses to listen to whatever Kalanick has to say, continuously interrupting him
Kalanick finally cuts him off after losing patience. Yes, there was some mild swearing, which was wrong. There was however no yelling on his part. None.
In fact, the only person who raised their voice over the course of this conversation was the driver.
Note that this wasn’t some classified material. The media published this exact video under the headlines that lied about its content. Yet every single article received an overwhelming support from #DeleteUber movement. Which poses two questions: 1) have the readers even watched it? And 2) if they have, what exactly did they see? Is it really possible that the perceptual bias could have developed to the point where our brain filters physical evidence through the prism of what we’ve been made to believe?
But Kalanick was wrong. He was wrong to apologize the way he did. His statement should have been reduced to one sentence, apologizing for the language he used at the end of the video, and promising to follow up on the issue raised by the driver. The truth is that, while taking the blame for something seemed noble once upon a time, these days it’s only being taken advantage of and exploited. It’s easy to convince someone they are a bad person if they actually listen to you. Unfortunately for him, Kalanick listened.
For many people, it’s no longer about getting on the right side of the argument. It’s about getting on the easy side. It’s difficult to maintain the benefit of the doubt because it leaves no room to let the anger out in the open. Life of an average citizen can sometimes feel like a battlefield. Looking for an outlet, someone to be angry at, is understandable.
But it’s not right.
How did cancel culture happen, you ask? This is how.