On the plus side, even Kalanick has agreed that the spying and stalking suggestion is terrible and reprehensible, although there's no suggestion that a firing is imminent.
Also on the plus side, it was an off-the-cuff remark that only people who like getting upset over nonsense got upset about. If firing were imminent, it would be an insult to all reasonable human beings who know that sometimes you vent at parties. If you want to dislike Uber, dislike them over their anti-competitive practices, not over this.
There's no such thing without some form of prior agreement that it's off the record.
If you're hanging out with family, it's probably off-the-record, even if they're reporters. If you're hanging out with friends, it's likely but not guaranteed off-the-record, even if they're reporters.
If you're in front of reporters that don't have specified ground-rules, it's on the record. It has been established time and again that if it's not specified off the record, then it's on the record.
Michael called the subject reporter and asked for an off-the-record conversation, which she refused to grant, and he hung up. Clearly he knows the difference.
He wrote an apologetic email later, knowing full well we're now in a time where an ostensibly private email can be made public by the recipient and did not ask for any special status.
It's not like he doesn't know the difference between on-the-record and off-the-record.
So, why does he get a pass on an unbelievably stupid statement?
He wrote an apologetic email later, knowing full well we're now in a time where an ostensibly private email can be made public by the recipient and did not ask for any special status.
His email (which I did not read until you mentioned it) essentially said that he was just venting, and that is how myself and any other reasonable person would have interpreted it even before reading his email. Whether or not it was meant to be off-the-record is of no consequence here. It's the interpretation that is absurd and sensationalist.
