Uber's "heroic innovator" narratives indulged the natural biases of the reporters embedded in Silicon Valley, where "tech companies" are viewed as the major driver of economic progress. Since reporters ignored Uber's subsidies (and all other economic evidence), the link between Uber's breakthrough innovations and improved, cheaper service was treated as an established fact. And since this "innovation" was accepted as a powerful force, these reporters saw no need to understand anything about the old-line industry being "disrupted." Mainstream coverage of Uber almost never included interviews of anyone with firsthand knowledge of urban transport economics.
The most emphatic endorsements of Uber's narratives came from the liberal mainstream media based in New York and Washington. Despite its libertarian, Silicon Valley origins, Uber recognized the importance of establishing strong user support in Democratic cities like these, and hired David Plouffe, Barack Obama's campaign manager, to head its PR efforts. Wealthy elites in these cities were especially enthusiastic about Uber's improved, cheaper service, and so reporters had little interest in digging into the subsidies, driver exploitation, or regulatory disobedience issues.
Outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker, Bloomberg, and the Atlantic19 were apparently oblivious to the fact that they were amplifying claims crafted by Koch-funded groups designed to undermine market competition, the concept of urban transport as a public good, and the legitimacy of any form of regulatory authority. The regular repetition of the company's narrative by seemingly independent, elite outlets concealed its manufactured, top-down origins, and established it as accepted public opinion not requiring further debate.
For those reporters not susceptible to "heroic tech innovator" narratives, Uber provided the "dominance is inevitable" narrative. One did not need to have a Silicon Valley worldview to see that the company's massive funding and ruthless culture were running roughshod over any competitor, regulator, or journalist raising the slightest doubt about Uber's eventual success. If the end result was a foregone conclusion, there was no need to investigate whether Uber actually had the superior efficiencies normally required to drive competitors out of business.
Source: Uber's Path of Destruction - American Affairs Journal
No comments:
Post a Comment