is what hack-reporter Rachel Swan told me was going to be in her piece on the app industry vs the cab industry. This was supposed to be a balanced article that showed cab company corruption going against the dangers of using illegal and uninsured taxi services.I also pressed her to warn the drivers and customers of Lyft and Sidecar that the "terms" to which they agreed when they downloaded the apps included signing away their rights to sue and agreeing to come to the defense of the app companies (at the customer's expense) in case the companies were sued for negligence.
Needless to say, Rachel did neither. Instead of warning the public about the possible dangers of riding in uninsured vehicles, she passed on an advertising blurb dressed as a fact by Sidecar CEO Sunil Paul claiming that a they had done a study showing that Sidecar passengers "felt safer" then they would have riding in a taxicab. "Felt safer!" Rachel wrote this as if it proved that they were safer. And, why would Sunil bother to do a study when he has Rachel Swan ready to make every bit of garbage that comes out of his mouth sound like the word of God?
Rachel also engaged in the usual hatchet job that appears to be a right of passage for wanna be journalists in San Francisco. She included all the bad stuff about the cab industry and treated the CEO's of Lyft, Sidecar and Uber as if they were a combination of Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs and Charlemagne instead of developers of illegal, taxi apps. The tone of her prose would go very well with an orientation video for new hires at Sidecar U.
As it turns out I'm not the first to be jobbed by this babe. This is from a comment to Sweet Rachel's purple post:
@healied2 "This writer is well known by lefties in the East Bay for doing exactly what you describe, and also for the fact that she actually has turned against her very informants who bring a story to her. She did this in her East Bay article, titled Obama Drama. She was brought a story about how the official Obama campaign folks were actually doing things all over California to jeopardize that campaign, and she never followed direct leads she was given that would've proven that point. Instead, she wrote a glowing story about the official campaign folks and turned a negative light on the most radical dedicated workers in that campaign. If anyone is ever approached by her for a story- stay away. "
I have to drive my cab tonight so I'll cut it short but I'll leave you with a few things from Twitter and Yelp that were sent to me by Athan Rebelos.
In the first one, Danielle V. should clearly have read Lyft's "terms" before agreeing to use the service (the "terms" that I asked Sweet Rachel to warn the public against). These "terms" are almost impossible to find on the Lyft and Sidecar websites. Rachel couldn't find them herself and had to call me up and ask me where they were (way at the bottom in very small print). They print out to over 20 pages at 12pt type. I don't know how anybody could read the "terms" on a smart phone. These are some of the limitations in question:
Limitation of Liability
IN NO EVENT WILL WE, OUR SUBSIDIARIES, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES OR OUR SUPPLIERS, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR INDIRECT DAMAGES ... ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH LYFT, OUR SERVICES OR THIS AGREEMENT (HOWEVER ARISING, INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE) EVEN IF WE OR OUR AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES KNOW OR HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES....
LYFT HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER FOR THE ACTIONS OR CONDUCT OF DRIVERS OR RIDERS. LYFT HAS NO OBLIGATION TO INTERVENE IN OR BE INVOLVED IN ANY WAY IN DISPUTES THAT MAY ARISE BETWEEN DRIVERS, RIDERS, OR THIRD PARTIES. RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE REGARDING PROVIDING OR ACCEPTING TRANSPORTATION REST SOLELY WITH YOU. IT IS EACH RIDER AND DRIVER’S RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS IN ALL ACTIONS AND INTERACTIONS WITH ANY PARTY THEY MAY INTERACT WITH THROUGH USE OF THE SERVICES. LYFT MAY BUT HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO SCREEN OR OTHERWISE EVALUATE POTENTIAL RIDERS OR USERS. USERS UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THAT LYFT HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE IDENTITY OR ACTIONS OF THE RIDERS AND DRIVERS, AND LYFT REQUESTS THAT USERS EXERCISE CAUTION AND GOOD JUDGMENT WHEN USING THE SERVICES. DRIVERS AND RIDERS USE THE SERVICES AT THEIR OWN RISK.
Talk about the warmth of community, no?
Ed, I read the same story, or at least I think I did, because I remember her saying ALL of the things she said she would say. Lyft and Sidecar are not necessarily insured. That drivers and riders signed away their rights to sue.
ReplyDeleteGo back and read it again. It's a very well balanced article, which naturally means none of the interested parties (including your or me) are going to be perfectly happy with the results. I would have thought you'd appreciate that!
I do not find it the least bit balanced. Lyft and Sidecar are NOT INSURED There is no necessarily about it. I did miss it if she said that the drivers and riders signed away their right to sue. In any case, she mentioned them in passing - as a minor detail - when these facts should be given major treatment. She missed mentioned how difficult Lyft etc make it for the customer and drivers to realize that they are signing their rights.
ReplyDeleteI do not appreciate the woman lying to me. I do not appreciate her embarrassing another person when I asked her not to do.
On top of this, she acts like she's writing advertising copy for the bunch.
I'll go into more detail in another post.
Why are you anonymous?
I enjoyed reading the twits at the end. Who knew CEOs had so much time on their hands?
ReplyDeleteConfucious always say, if you have chance to go anonymous, go anonymous much safer.
ReplyDeleteKung Fu Tzu says a pompous ass brays the loudest.
DeleteConfucius said what he thought at the risk of his life. His followers took down every word he said and gave him credit for it. That's why people, other than Mr. anonymous, still read him.
ReplyDeleteThey didn't have fortune cookies in his day but his Chinese was better than your English.