Brandjack News

By Quentin Langley

Threatening journalists is really bad form for a PR professional. It is all about building relationships. The clue is in the name. Emil Michael, of Uber, said that the company could spend a million dollars digging dirt on journalists. Apparently, he did not mean that he was recommending this, merely that it would be justified in the case of journalists who were irredeemably hostile.

Journalists dig dirt. It is their job. But if we are talkng about ethical behaviour then responding in kind seems impossible to justify – at least, not unless one adopts a very narrow definition of "dirt". 

Let us suppose a journalist was reporting negative information or writing negative opinions about Uber. If research suggested that the journalist had a record of writing false or biased material about other businesses in the past then it would be very reasonable to hit back by making this public. But if the research suggested that the journalist had cheated on a romantic partner then trying to secure better coverage by blackmail would be grossly unethical. 

Uber has distanced itself. CEO Travis Kalanick gave Michael a very public dressing down on Twitter and declared that Michael's duties did not involve having any input to communications strategy. Nonetheless, this incident has greatly damaged Uber's relationships with journalists and the wider public.

Uber already faces a great deal of hostility from vested interests in the taxi industry. In New York cab drivers invest very substantial sums purchasing the limited number of "medallions" which are designed to keep prices high. In London black cab drivers must invest several years in studying "the knowledge" – memorising the complex layout of London's streets. That was actually useful before the invention of the satnav.

Naturally, these groups campaign against Uber and its drivers and customers. In such a febrile atmosphere it should not be hard for Uber to occupy the moral high ground. Abandoning it was very, very, bad move.