An Exxon lobbyist thought he was in a job interview. Instead, it was recorded(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
An Exxon lobbyist thought he was in a job interview. Instead, it was recorded
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/07/02/exxon-climate-change-video-leaked/
45 comments
> nothing surprising
I'm upset, not surprised. Does evil suddenly become totally OK and cool just because I know it exists? Of course not.
> or even very controversial here
Hard disagree. The greenwashing faction makes a very big deal of having genuine positive intentions. They got caught in a lie. They got caught so hard that they had to acknowledge the controversy and double down on their position. We have an attack and a counterattack -- blood is running hot. Not only is it controversial, it's maximally controversial.
> I've participated in the process of hiring high-end firms to do lobbying work.
> The headline would more accurately
No, your proposal is not more accurate, but it is more in line with company interests. It works overtime to draw attention away from the inferences that can be drawn from the evidence (i.e. that the greenwashing is a lie and that companies are actively involved in self-interested efforts to curtail environmental efforts) and makes every effort to push the blame down to the individual level. How convenient.
Nice try.
I'm upset, not surprised. Does evil suddenly become totally OK and cool just because I know it exists? Of course not.
> or even very controversial here
Hard disagree. The greenwashing faction makes a very big deal of having genuine positive intentions. They got caught in a lie. They got caught so hard that they had to acknowledge the controversy and double down on their position. We have an attack and a counterattack -- blood is running hot. Not only is it controversial, it's maximally controversial.
> I've participated in the process of hiring high-end firms to do lobbying work.
> The headline would more accurately
No, your proposal is not more accurate, but it is more in line with company interests. It works overtime to draw attention away from the inferences that can be drawn from the evidence (i.e. that the greenwashing is a lie and that companies are actively involved in self-interested efforts to curtail environmental efforts) and makes every effort to push the blame down to the individual level. How convenient.
Nice try.
>> nothing surprising
> I'm upset, not surprised. Does evil suddenly become totally OK and cool just because I know it exists? Of course not.
Also, nothing surprising [to someone who's "participated in the process of hiring high-end firms to do lobbying work"] != nothing surprising [to the general public].
Also, it's annoying when someone deflects a statement (implicit or otherwise) about what ought to be with a statement about what is.
> I'm upset, not surprised. Does evil suddenly become totally OK and cool just because I know it exists? Of course not.
Also, nothing surprising [to someone who's "participated in the process of hiring high-end firms to do lobbying work"] != nothing surprising [to the general public].
Also, it's annoying when someone deflects a statement (implicit or otherwise) about what ought to be with a statement about what is.
I have no idea how you can conclude that this lobbyist is exaggerating his accomplishments, specially considering his career and what Exxon have been doing since the 70s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont...). I guess one could claim that there is nothing "new" into this story, but how can you possibly say that there is nothing controversial regarding being part of a massive decades-long disinformation and anti-environmental campaign?
Well it seems the claims that the lobbyist is making about his contacts with Congress have been denied by the elected officials. They wouldn’t lie would they?
I agree, there is nothing inherently surprising here.
Should this be illegal? Not generally.
Should it be more transparent who lobbies for what? Absolutely. In my opinion meeting notes of politicians / lobbyist ought to be a matter of public record.
Also: is lobbying for policies that directly cause environmental damage and kill people morally corrupt and evil. Yes.
Should this be illegal? Not generally.
Should it be more transparent who lobbies for what? Absolutely. In my opinion meeting notes of politicians / lobbyist ought to be a matter of public record.
Also: is lobbying for policies that directly cause environmental damage and kill people morally corrupt and evil. Yes.
This assessment can go both ways. The fact that he would think these "brags" are going to make him look good shows how bad the intentions here are.
Whether or not these are things he has done, they are things he (and the company) are trying to do.
Whether or not these are things he has done, they are things he (and the company) are trying to do.
there's also the poor ethics of greenpeace lying about a job interview as well as releasing that content. way to stay classy greenpeace. Also pretty sure that's illegal in many countries.
>way to stay classy greenpeace.
That's a legitimate strategy by activist organizations.
>there’s the PETA Principle: the more controversial something is, the more it gets talked about.
>A rape that obviously happened? Shove it in people’s face and they’ll admit it’s an outrage, just as they’ll admit factory farming is an outrage. But they’re not going to talk about it much. There are a zillion outrages every day, you’re going to need more than that to draw people out of their shells.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage...
That's a legitimate strategy by activist organizations.
>there’s the PETA Principle: the more controversial something is, the more it gets talked about.
>A rape that obviously happened? Shove it in people’s face and they’ll admit it’s an outrage, just as they’ll admit factory farming is an outrage. But they’re not going to talk about it much. There are a zillion outrages every day, you’re going to need more than that to draw people out of their shells.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage...
> “There’s no such thing as bad publicity” … P.T. Barnum
> “There’s only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” … Oscar Wilde
> “There’s only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” … Oscar Wilde
I'm not sure the takeaway from that essay is that PETA's tactics are "legitimate". Arguably they are effective (at least in the short term) but it remains to be seen whether the cost of such tactics on society are worth it.
> That's a legitimate strategy by activist organizations.
Maybe. But you’d better be sure you would still feel that way if the ‘activist organisation’ is espousing views you find abhorrent.
Maybe. But you’d better be sure you would still feel that way if the ‘activist organisation’ is espousing views you find abhorrent.
So Project Veritas is ok too. Cool, Glad you can agree on that.
> So Project Veritas is ok too. Cool, Glad you can agree on that.
I believe the actual issue with Project Veritas is the highly deceptive edits they make to their targets' statements, not that they falsely identified themselves to get their targets to talk. It's totally consistent to be opposed to the former and not the latter.
Also, your statement is a non sequitur. It's like responding someone who says it's fine to be a vegetarian by saying they must be fine with Hilter and his genocides (since he was a vegetarian too). Sometimes you can trip people up with statements like that, but it's dumb, doesn't prove anything, and makes you look like an ass.
I believe the actual issue with Project Veritas is the highly deceptive edits they make to their targets' statements, not that they falsely identified themselves to get their targets to talk. It's totally consistent to be opposed to the former and not the latter.
Also, your statement is a non sequitur. It's like responding someone who says it's fine to be a vegetarian by saying they must be fine with Hilter and his genocides (since he was a vegetarian too). Sometimes you can trip people up with statements like that, but it's dumb, doesn't prove anything, and makes you look like an ass.
Your previous statement appeared to say what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you’re going to defend Greanpeace for its deceptive practice, it’s hypocritical to say project veritas is bad.
> Your previous statement appeared to say what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you’re going to defend Greanpeace for its deceptive practice, it’s hypocritical to say project veritas is bad.
I drew a pertinent distinction, which you seem to be ignoring. Or are you confusing me for another commenter? I made no statement previous to the one you replied to.
Did Greenpeace edit this interview to do something like give a false impression of what this guy actually told them? That's what Project Veritas often does. For instance, here's a conservative news outlet dissecting the kind of deceptions they engage in: https://www.theblaze.com/news/2011/03/10/does-raw-video-of-n.... The article outlines a lot of deceptive edits in one video, but some of them are particularly egregious, e.g.:
> So after saying that the MEAC website advocates the “acceptance of Sharia,” the video cuts to the NPR exec saying, “Really? That’s what they said?” The cadence is jovial and upbeat and the narration moves on. The implication is that the NPR exec is aware and perhaps amused or approving of the MEAC mission statement. But when you look at the raw video you realize he was actually recounting an unrelated and innocuous issue about confusion over names in the restaurant reservation.
I mean, that's not too far off from this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_yJ4QhrAaM&t=57s
I drew a pertinent distinction, which you seem to be ignoring. Or are you confusing me for another commenter? I made no statement previous to the one you replied to.
Did Greenpeace edit this interview to do something like give a false impression of what this guy actually told them? That's what Project Veritas often does. For instance, here's a conservative news outlet dissecting the kind of deceptions they engage in: https://www.theblaze.com/news/2011/03/10/does-raw-video-of-n.... The article outlines a lot of deceptive edits in one video, but some of them are particularly egregious, e.g.:
> So after saying that the MEAC website advocates the “acceptance of Sharia,” the video cuts to the NPR exec saying, “Really? That’s what they said?” The cadence is jovial and upbeat and the narration moves on. The implication is that the NPR exec is aware and perhaps amused or approving of the MEAC mission statement. But when you look at the raw video you realize he was actually recounting an unrelated and innocuous issue about confusion over names in the restaurant reservation.
I mean, that's not too far off from this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_yJ4QhrAaM&t=57s
I see a lot of comments discussing the legitimacy of the investigative technique, and whether "lobbyists being lobbyists" is bad. For those of us who agree that lobbying sucks and that Greenpeace is fighting a worthy fight, I want to start the conversation towards: what do we do with this?
So, not in the abstract, what can you, the tech savvy HN reader, and the rest of us, do about this kind of stuff? I know that taking a study like this and amplifying it's signal is one positive, actionable thing (I've forwarded the article to a group of folks I know have active presence in places where it could matter). I'm curious as to what you all do to fight against [ shitty lobbyists, busted democracy, climate change ] that might be unintuitive to others?
Specifically, I'm not asking whether these things are worth fighting for. There's enough discussion about that. Just for those of us who see the problems; wat do?
So, not in the abstract, what can you, the tech savvy HN reader, and the rest of us, do about this kind of stuff? I know that taking a study like this and amplifying it's signal is one positive, actionable thing (I've forwarded the article to a group of folks I know have active presence in places where it could matter). I'm curious as to what you all do to fight against [ shitty lobbyists, busted democracy, climate change ] that might be unintuitive to others?
Specifically, I'm not asking whether these things are worth fighting for. There's enough discussion about that. Just for those of us who see the problems; wat do?
You can, on a local level, push for the American Anti-Corruption Act.
"In cities and states across the country, citizens are using a piece of model legislation called the American Anti-Corruption Act to root out conflicts of interest and corruption where they live. Time and again, history has seen laws passed at the city and state level make it all the way to Washington and turn into federal law.
Local Anti-Corruption Acts and Resolutions build momentum towards national reform, since politicians running an anti-corruption platform seed Congress with representatives, not pre-purchased by special interests."
https://represent.us/action/is-lobbying-good-or-bad/
"In cities and states across the country, citizens are using a piece of model legislation called the American Anti-Corruption Act to root out conflicts of interest and corruption where they live. Time and again, history has seen laws passed at the city and state level make it all the way to Washington and turn into federal law.
Local Anti-Corruption Acts and Resolutions build momentum towards national reform, since politicians running an anti-corruption platform seed Congress with representatives, not pre-purchased by special interests."
https://represent.us/action/is-lobbying-good-or-bad/
I love the work that represent.us does. This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about.
I remember reading Republic, Lost years ago. it's good to see action plans around that material.
I remember reading Republic, Lost years ago. it's good to see action plans around that material.
I have to question whether or not this recording was legal. I don't know first-hand what UK's surreptitious recording laws are, but according to this website[0]:
> In the United Kingdom, all parties are required to be notified and give consent regarding recordings. The only exceptions are if the person making the recording can guarantee that it won’t be shared with third parties, and that it is being recorded either to collect evidence/prevent possible crime or to prove regulatory compliance.
Several USA states have "all party consent" laws as well. Namely California, Florida, and some others. So where were the Greenpeace people located, and where was McCoy located? Because this sounds like a felony to me.
> Industry codes for British broadcasters and newspaper are more permissive than U.S. publications, according to Glenda Cooper, a senior journalism lecturer at City, University of London. Intrusions such as an undercover recording can be seen as a last resort for information deemed to be in the public interest. "It is seen as part of the investigative journalist’s tool kit, if it can be justified,” she said. “It’s not the first thing that you do."
Does Greenpeace get to decide what's legal and what's not in the UK? I don't really care about this one way or another, I'm just interested in the legality of this recording and subsequent release in the first place.
[0] https://getvoip.com/blog/2020/07/14/call-recording-laws/
> In the United Kingdom, all parties are required to be notified and give consent regarding recordings. The only exceptions are if the person making the recording can guarantee that it won’t be shared with third parties, and that it is being recorded either to collect evidence/prevent possible crime or to prove regulatory compliance.
Several USA states have "all party consent" laws as well. Namely California, Florida, and some others. So where were the Greenpeace people located, and where was McCoy located? Because this sounds like a felony to me.
> Industry codes for British broadcasters and newspaper are more permissive than U.S. publications, according to Glenda Cooper, a senior journalism lecturer at City, University of London. Intrusions such as an undercover recording can be seen as a last resort for information deemed to be in the public interest. "It is seen as part of the investigative journalist’s tool kit, if it can be justified,” she said. “It’s not the first thing that you do."
Does Greenpeace get to decide what's legal and what's not in the UK? I don't really care about this one way or another, I'm just interested in the legality of this recording and subsequent release in the first place.
[0] https://getvoip.com/blog/2020/07/14/call-recording-laws/
> I don't really care about this one way or another, I'm just interested in the legality of this recording and subsequent release in the first place.
Really odd thing to focus on.
Really odd thing to focus on.
not really. You think it's OK for someone to lure you to a "job interview" under false pretenses so they can secretly record you getting grilled about your current employer's business practices and then release that information to the public? Or only if it's a scummy company so that's OK and definitely not illegal.
> Or only if it's a scummy company so that's OK and definitely not illegal.
Likely OK, but also maybe illegal.
Likely OK, but also maybe illegal.
Honest question: are these things actually surprising to people? All of the things admitted to seem pretty standard for lobbyists of large companies with less than stellar ethics. That applies to tech companies, too.
I've written critiques on the "why are people surprised?" fallacy multiple times, so this time I'll just summarize: Outrage != surprise.
It's unsurprising to me in the same way that the Snowden leaks were unsurprising, but having something concrete to point to to back up my expectations is useful.
I was surprised to learn about "shadow groups": I thought all lobbyists were required to be registered, but turns out that's actually not the case in the US.
They are, but "lobbying" in the Lobbying Disclosure Act is pretty narrowly defined. A fly-by-night Facebook ad operation, or whatever it was that the shadow groups he was talking about were doing, doesn't constitute lobbying under the LDA. Also, if you give money to a nonprofit, and that nonprofit spends its money on lobbyists, it's the nonprofit's identity that's disclosed, not yours, and depending on the kind of nonprofit entity, it might not have to disclose who its funders are.
We're in the "feigning shock" stage of the climate disaster. Its where billions of people who've been being told about climate change for decades all pretend they had no idea. Exxon lobbiests are a useful distraction so no one has to think "well I was told this would happen when I was a kid and now I'm 50 and have voted against fixing it, it's happening".
The "feigning shock" is whenever any of these climate alarmists are told the majority of the population doesn't see a crisis and simply doesn't care a whole lot. That is what is revealed in this interview and is always met by feigned shock. Study after study reveals that most people don't care a whole lot, and yet always shock must be feigned whenever someone points out that they don't see a crisis.
You see apples, I see oranges, but we both agree no preventative action is going to be taken on climate change and that the (vast) majority are happy with that.
Fair?
Fair?
[deleted]
Recently I watched the film "thank you for smoking" and there's a sign I saw hanging in the background of a scene and it said "be thankful for your government, it's the best that money can buy" and I just thought that was absolutely perfect
Strange question, but no, I'm not surprised. Why do you ask? I don't usually read the news in order to be surprised.
Thanks for editorializing the title to make it less outrageous.
“Instead it was a secretly recorded Zoom call.” provokes the image that they thought they were at an (in person) job interview, while it was actually a Zoom call. Irritating, because the job interview would also have been on Zoom. They weren’t surprised to find themselves in a Zoom call.
“Instead it was a secretly recorded Zoom call.” provokes the image that they thought they were at an (in person) job interview, while it was actually a Zoom call. Irritating, because the job interview would also have been on Zoom. They weren’t surprised to find themselves in a Zoom call.
I had to cut it because of the character limit that hackernews has (https://emojipedia.org/grinning-face-with-sweat/ hn blocks emoji apparently) but thanks
Emphasis on the Ex. Reminds me of when the high powered DC attorney Ty Cobb was overheard sitting outside of a restaurant talking quite loudly about confidential matters regarding his representation of Trump. I suppose this is more akin to Project Veritas?
>Democracy Dies In Darkness
In this case, Democracy Dies Behind Paywall. Adding WashingtonPost.com to my [manual] filtering process
In this case, Democracy Dies Behind Paywall. Adding WashingtonPost.com to my [manual] filtering process
"Democracy Dies in Darkness"
I don't disagree, but it's hilarious because The Washington Post is one of the biggest darkness merchants there is.
I don't disagree, but it's hilarious because The Washington Post is one of the biggest darkness merchants there is.
Keen to hear how you've solved the journalism revenue problem. You must surely be a billionaire!
Following my recommendation won't make anyone a billionaire I think but it will give them a chance at some of my leftover money:
allow me to buy one issue, or one story or 50 tokens or something.
But between two papers, one national broadcaster that costs me n x $100, Netflix, Spotify, supporting Amnesty and Médecins Sans Frontières, my family and my church there isn't room for everyone who want me to subscribe.
allow me to buy one issue, or one story or 50 tokens or something.
But between two papers, one national broadcaster that costs me n x $100, Netflix, Spotify, supporting Amnesty and Médecins Sans Frontières, my family and my church there isn't room for everyone who want me to subscribe.
> allow me to buy one issue, or one story or 50 tokens or something.
The problem with that idea is:
1) it doesn't result in a predictable revenue stream (required for good investigative journalism), and...
2) it incentives click-bait and outrage-bait more than anything else.
The problem with that idea is:
1) it doesn't result in a predictable revenue stream (required for good investigative journalism), and...
2) it incentives click-bait and outrage-bait more than anything else.
> it incentives click-bait and outrage-bait more than anything else.
Yes. And as I wrote above I don't expect anyone to get rich from it if done according to how I thought it would work.
As for avoiding click bait, what blendle did was to offer refunds. I think they later reversed that policy, and I think that was the point I gave them up (also Linux magazines and other stuff I wanted to read never showed up).
Still, for someone wanting to be running a decent company, not a unicorn factory I think there is a niche:
I actively read very much, even from journalists I deeply disagree with, and I'd rather spend $2 extra a day on good writing than coffe (for instance).
Yes. And as I wrote above I don't expect anyone to get rich from it if done according to how I thought it would work.
As for avoiding click bait, what blendle did was to offer refunds. I think they later reversed that policy, and I think that was the point I gave them up (also Linux magazines and other stuff I wanted to read never showed up).
Still, for someone wanting to be running a decent company, not a unicorn factory I think there is a niche:
I actively read very much, even from journalists I deeply disagree with, and I'd rather spend $2 extra a day on good writing than coffe (for instance).
Use Brave. It bypasses most paywalls and sign up requirements.
...and skips commercials in hulu.
Lobbyists are just another form of salesperson or relationship manager outside of conventional sales. Like hiring PR firms (another form of influence sales), they claim to have done shit they actually didn't do. They may have been there at the time it happened but their causal impact was nowhere near what they claim. Even when not exaggerating to get a job, these people wildly over-estimate their own impact.
The headline would more accurately be: "Candidate in competitive job interview for role in influence-sales exaggerates accomplishments and confidently over-promises future results."
(Edit to add: I was in a public company. There was no shortage of candidates (both people and firms) willing to at least imply they would or could do some fairly shady shit. We would thank them for their time and never call them back. While they may collect their fee or paycheck, my boss can go to jail and, at best, I'll only get insta-fired for even participating in the selection process, losing all my unvested options, no one-year severance/benefits.
The downside cost of even being near shady shit in a high-profile successful public company is personally catastrophic in the millions of dollars and a reputation hit to the company that wipes billions off our market cap overnight - and it only has to be the slightest bit true. Sure, you might get away with sleazy shit and get ahead one time. BUT it's not a reliably repeatable pattern and big public companies are built on real revenue and results over time. It's no different than PR. There are sleazy media outlets and/or journalists who can be unfairly influenced for $$$ but they tend to be minor league and not very valuable. At most, spending a lot on effective lobbying or PR gets you access to make your case. And often, you can spend a ton and not even get that much.)