WEBVTT - That Time I Burned a Bridge 0:00:10.960 --> 0:00:13.440 Welcome to game Plan, a show about our lives at work. 0:00:13.640 --> 0:00:16.360 I'm Francesco Leavy, editor of the game Plan section at 0:00:16.360 --> 0:00:20.160 Bloomberg dot com, and I'm Rebecca Greenfield, a reporter at Bloomberg, 0:00:20.200 --> 0:00:23.919 where I cover workplace culture. This week, we're talking about 0:00:24.079 --> 0:00:28.000 bridge burning. Everybody has the fantasy of quitting their job 0:00:28.160 --> 0:00:32.120 and leaving in a blaze of glory, telling their boss 0:00:32.159 --> 0:00:35.199 exactly what they always thought of them, I don't know, 0:00:35.360 --> 0:00:39.360 tearing up somebody else's cubicle, doing something really memorable that 0:00:39.640 --> 0:00:41.800 will make the company rue the day that they treated 0:00:41.800 --> 0:00:45.159 you badly. But usually we have the good sense not 0:00:45.200 --> 0:00:48.320 to do stuff like this because we've been always taught 0:00:48.360 --> 0:00:51.840 that you don't burn bridges. Right, Yeah, you never want 0:00:51.880 --> 0:00:54.800 to piss someone off that maybe you'll need them for 0:00:54.880 --> 0:00:57.440 something later, right, And you never know who that person 0:00:57.480 --> 0:01:00.800 is going to be, so your workplace nemesis. Now, who's 0:01:01.600 --> 0:01:04.360 some other officer and that you hate could be the 0:01:04.480 --> 0:01:07.480 very person that is responsible for deciding whether you get fired, 0:01:08.040 --> 0:01:11.360 hired or fired at a future job. And yet we 0:01:11.400 --> 0:01:13.880 still hear about these examples of people doing exactly that, 0:01:14.000 --> 0:01:19.320 just doing stuff that is so deliciously awful. But it 0:01:19.480 --> 0:01:21.920 is a really bad career move, and we love reading 0:01:21.920 --> 0:01:24.360 about it. Like, not too long ago, there was a 0:01:24.360 --> 0:01:27.240 customer service employee a yelped named Talia Jane who wrote 0:01:27.760 --> 0:01:31.240 a lengthy essay on Medium about how terrible her job 0:01:31.360 --> 0:01:35.080 was and how poor her pay was, and it generated 0:01:35.120 --> 0:01:37.399 a long back and forth on the Internet about whether 0:01:37.440 --> 0:01:40.240 she was an entitled millennial or whether she was completely 0:01:40.319 --> 0:01:41.800 right to stand up to the man. But the whole 0:01:41.800 --> 0:01:45.160 point is we all got the joy of watching somebody 0:01:45.280 --> 0:01:49.600 live out our work revenge fantasies without any of the repercussions. 0:01:49.840 --> 0:01:53.560 Yet so fun to read these things because it scratches 0:01:53.600 --> 0:01:55.680 that itch that we have to do these things, but 0:01:55.720 --> 0:01:58.120 then we don't actually have to do it, right, But 0:01:58.200 --> 0:02:00.920 what happens when you burn a bridge and you don't 0:02:00.960 --> 0:02:03.280 even really know you're doing it as you're doing it. 0:02:03.880 --> 0:02:05.760 This week's show is going to be in a little 0:02:05.760 --> 0:02:08.040 bit of a different format. We're going to dedicate the 0:02:08.080 --> 0:02:13.200 whole time to exploring an incident that could have burned 0:02:13.280 --> 0:02:16.280 some major bridges and that is a very personal story 0:02:16.320 --> 0:02:18.680 that comes from within our very own podcast team. Isn't 0:02:18.680 --> 0:02:20.960 that right, Becca? Yes, I'm I may have burned a 0:02:21.000 --> 0:02:24.880 bridge without quite knowing that I was doing it. To 0:02:25.120 --> 0:02:30.040 understand the tale of Becca's Big, bad bridge burning. You 0:02:30.040 --> 0:02:32.240 need a little bit of background, so we're just gonna 0:02:32.480 --> 0:02:44.320 launch you right into it. Sit back and enjoy back. 0:02:45.360 --> 0:02:47.200 I was a blogger at The Atlantic Wire, and I 0:02:47.240 --> 0:02:51.160 wrote a post called Who's crazier bloggers are Writers? There 0:02:51.160 --> 0:02:52.799 have been an article in The New York Times about 0:02:52.880 --> 0:02:55.679 Joe Wisenthal, a blogger at the time at the website 0:02:55.720 --> 0:02:59.079 Business Insider. The story was about how much he worked. 0:02:59.120 --> 0:03:00.959 He woke up at four a m. He was always 0:03:00.960 --> 0:03:03.200 on Twitter, so much so that his wife had to 0:03:03.200 --> 0:03:06.200 tweet at him to get his attention. Even his bosses 0:03:06.240 --> 0:03:09.919 described as schedule as insane. My job at the time 0:03:10.000 --> 0:03:11.720 was to respond to the news of the day, so 0:03:11.760 --> 0:03:14.280 I wrote a post about Joe, which was mostly about 0:03:14.280 --> 0:03:17.600 the way we talked about workaholic bloggers versus other types 0:03:17.639 --> 0:03:19.720 of people who are dedicated to their jobs with the 0:03:19.760 --> 0:03:22.480 same intensity. I used Robert Carroll, one of the most 0:03:22.520 --> 0:03:26.040 famous and celebrated biographers, as an example. The story was 0:03:26.080 --> 0:03:29.360 also a criticism of Joe, though it had some harsh lines. 0:03:29.960 --> 0:03:33.280 You said that it sounded like quote his life sucks 0:03:34.080 --> 0:03:36.560 and that he was quote feeding his own ego and 0:03:36.640 --> 0:03:40.200 the page view beast that is Business Insider. It was 0:03:40.240 --> 0:03:44.200 a controversy when I went up Business Insider, people including Joe, 0:03:44.440 --> 0:03:47.160 tweeted mean things at me, but it wasn't that out 0:03:47.200 --> 0:03:48.920 of the ordinary for a day in the life of 0:03:48.960 --> 0:03:51.840 blogger me at the time. And after a day of 0:03:51.920 --> 0:03:54.200 Twitter squabbling, I moved on with my life and I 0:03:54.240 --> 0:03:56.960 have to say I didn't really think about the article again. 0:03:58.680 --> 0:04:01.760 So three years later, you get a job at Bloomberg 0:04:02.360 --> 0:04:06.720 and Joe wasn'tal now works here. Now you work with 0:04:06.760 --> 0:04:09.440 this person that you had burned. I knew he worked 0:04:09.440 --> 0:04:11.600 at Bloomberg. There was a lot of press about it, 0:04:11.960 --> 0:04:15.480 but honestly, hadn't remembered that story. I didn't even think 0:04:15.520 --> 0:04:17.479 about it when I was interviewing for the job that 0:04:17.600 --> 0:04:19.960 it somehow might affect my chances of getting the job. 0:04:20.600 --> 0:04:24.760 But it turns out that Joe remembered it. I think 0:04:24.839 --> 0:04:27.279 he was he heard your name in a conversation about 0:04:27.520 --> 0:04:29.480 the interview process or that you had just been hired 0:04:29.560 --> 0:04:32.359 or something like that, and he was like, that's the 0:04:32.400 --> 0:04:35.440 woman who like tore me to shreds on the internet. 0:04:37.520 --> 0:04:40.120 That was Aaron rot copp An editor at Bloomberg who 0:04:40.160 --> 0:04:43.839 was very involved in hiring me. Not only did Joe remember, 0:04:43.960 --> 0:04:46.560 but everyone at Bloomberg had been talking about it before 0:04:46.640 --> 0:04:50.200 I started. We definitely all had like a real big laugh. 0:04:50.279 --> 0:04:52.479 I think there was like, uh, some reading out loud 0:04:52.600 --> 0:04:56.600 from your post about Joe wise atal um, not in 0:04:56.680 --> 0:04:59.200 like a sarcastic way, but like where we would read 0:04:59.200 --> 0:05:01.080 lines and then all laugh and Joe would laugh too. 0:05:02.440 --> 0:05:05.440 I might have remained blissfully ignorant until on my second 0:05:05.480 --> 0:05:07.520 day of work and editor here brought it up to me. 0:05:07.680 --> 0:05:10.520 He said, didn't you write a takedown of Joe Wisenthal 0:05:10.600 --> 0:05:13.520 and now you're sitting right next to him. At that moment, 0:05:13.560 --> 0:05:16.240 I was mortified. I was brand new at this job 0:05:16.360 --> 0:05:19.800 and had already jeopardized my relationships. Did my bosses and 0:05:19.839 --> 0:05:22.680 colleagues think I was this terrible person? Even worse, I 0:05:22.680 --> 0:05:24.880 had made a tactical error and offended someone I was 0:05:24.880 --> 0:05:28.440 going to work with. Basically the first time that he 0:05:28.520 --> 0:05:30.440 heard your name come up as like she's coming to 0:05:30.480 --> 0:05:32.680 work here, he was like, I have to ask her 0:05:32.680 --> 0:05:34.840 about that, or I don't remember. I don't remember how 0:05:34.880 --> 0:05:36.240 it came up. I just said yeah, as soon as 0:05:36.240 --> 0:05:38.440 he found out you were working here, that that conversation 0:05:38.480 --> 0:05:44.560 started again. That was Dashelle Bennett, a reporter at Bloomberg 0:05:44.640 --> 0:05:47.039 who works with Joe and who I had also worked 0:05:47.040 --> 0:05:50.520 with at The Atlantic Wire. If Joe remembered this story 0:05:50.560 --> 0:05:54.800 three years later, I must have really hurt him, kind 0:05:54.800 --> 0:05:56.720 of painted him as a crazy person a little bit 0:05:56.760 --> 0:05:59.800 that like, and that was but that in that craziness 0:06:00.120 --> 0:06:03.039 his appeal. It made a big deal about how little 0:06:03.040 --> 0:06:05.159 Sleepy got and how he like had carved out this 0:06:05.279 --> 0:06:07.240 niche as this guy who just gets up super early 0:06:07.240 --> 0:06:09.040 in the morning. It beats everybody and everything just because 0:06:09.040 --> 0:06:11.880 he's never sleeping, and you know, and there was a 0:06:11.920 --> 0:06:15.040 big picture and the big name picture was like a 0:06:15.120 --> 0:06:17.000 stage photo of him and his wife in bed and 0:06:17.040 --> 0:06:19.599 she's asleep and he's awake on his laptop. And that 0:06:19.680 --> 0:06:21.520 was kind of a big deal. So it wasn't you know, 0:06:22.000 --> 0:06:24.200 it was totally fair based on what the story was about. 0:06:24.240 --> 0:06:27.000 And and I also think that, like everyone knows that, 0:06:27.160 --> 0:06:28.480 you know, when you get featured in the New York 0:06:28.520 --> 0:06:33.000 Times about anything, you know, it becomes really hard to 0:06:33.040 --> 0:06:35.600 control what the response or the message of that story 0:06:35.680 --> 0:06:39.760 is going to be. So Becca had potentially burned a 0:06:39.800 --> 0:06:42.800 bridge and didn't even realize it. Joe could have blocked 0:06:42.839 --> 0:06:45.600 her hiring at worst, or at the very least, he 0:06:45.640 --> 0:06:48.159 could have ruined her reputation at work before she even 0:06:48.200 --> 0:06:51.520 started the job. In the end, I think everything turned 0:06:51.520 --> 0:06:56.240 out okay, or did it so? Our guest today is 0:06:56.279 --> 0:07:00.839 one of our colleagues at Bloomberg, Joe Wisenthal arkets editor 0:07:00.920 --> 0:07:05.400 and co host of the Odd Lots podcast, and for 0:07:05.440 --> 0:07:09.560 a while, the center of some of Rebecca's most tense moments. 0:07:11.040 --> 0:07:12.800 Thanks for having me. I'm first of all, I'm really 0:07:12.800 --> 0:07:14.960 excited to be on the other side. You know, normally 0:07:15.000 --> 0:07:17.880 I'm interviewing when we do the podcast, so it's always 0:07:17.880 --> 0:07:19.480 fun to be a guest. So thanks for having me, 0:07:19.680 --> 0:07:22.320 Thanks for talking to us, thanks for coming on. Well, 0:07:22.360 --> 0:07:25.320 I want to know about how you felt when you 0:07:25.320 --> 0:07:29.280 read the article that Rebecca wrote. So I was, first 0:07:29.320 --> 0:07:32.720 of all, I was. I was mostly amused and flattered. 0:07:33.160 --> 0:07:37.320 I was not like upset or like hurt or anything 0:07:37.360 --> 0:07:41.200 like that. I was so when that New York Times 0:07:41.360 --> 0:07:45.520 article about myself came out, you know, obviously, like any 0:07:45.680 --> 0:07:49.239 sort of narcissist, I was saying what people said about 0:07:49.240 --> 0:07:51.840 it and or various people who said nice things, and 0:07:51.960 --> 0:07:53.960 some people were making fun of me because the article 0:07:54.040 --> 0:07:57.760 made me sound kind of crazy, but that one, Rebecca's, 0:07:57.840 --> 0:08:01.440 was like the only one that like really like went 0:08:01.480 --> 0:08:05.440 after me. And the reason why I wasn't upset or 0:08:05.480 --> 0:08:07.840 like that I wasn't like heard right, it didn't like 0:08:07.920 --> 0:08:12.720 staying particularly is because the premise of the article was 0:08:12.760 --> 0:08:16.400 that I wasn't as talented as like the most talented 0:08:16.720 --> 0:08:19.480 biographer of all time, which I thought I just seemed 0:08:19.520 --> 0:08:21.640 like so I was like really like amused by like 0:08:21.720 --> 0:08:24.280 the premise. That's like, here's this person who is widely 0:08:24.320 --> 0:08:28.559 regarded to be like the lb j's biographer, Robert Carroll, 0:08:28.640 --> 0:08:30.560 right like that was how the article was set up. 0:08:30.640 --> 0:08:35.960 And it's like, yeah, guilty, I'm not well. I have 0:08:36.040 --> 0:08:38.960 gone back and read the article and it kind of 0:08:38.960 --> 0:08:41.160 has two points to it, which kind of shows it 0:08:41.200 --> 0:08:43.480 was kind of a bad, bad piece, but it was 0:08:43.520 --> 0:08:45.640 good in some ways. But the one piece was kind 0:08:45.679 --> 0:08:49.760 of saying that the media treats bloggers unfairly by saying 0:08:49.760 --> 0:08:53.400 that like portraying you is like a workaholic, and but 0:08:53.440 --> 0:08:55.600 like it's in a bad way. But when Robert Carroll's 0:08:55.600 --> 0:08:57.760 a workaholic. It's a good thing, and so I kind 0:08:57.760 --> 0:08:59.480 of tried to make that point. But then I was like, 0:08:59.559 --> 0:09:03.480 but but why do we think Joe's brand of borkaholicism 0:09:03.800 --> 0:09:09.840 is bad? It's because what he's doing is dumb. Basically, Yeah, yeah, 0:09:09.880 --> 0:09:11.880 I think I guess that's right. Like, I mean, it's 0:09:11.920 --> 0:09:14.079 been a long time since I've read it. So there 0:09:14.120 --> 0:09:17.480 was one thought, which is that the premise of the 0:09:17.559 --> 0:09:19.600 piece was such like felt like it was set up 0:09:19.640 --> 0:09:21.880 in a way that like, of course I couldn't win, 0:09:22.080 --> 0:09:25.000 so I wasn't too bothered. But then and this is 0:09:25.000 --> 0:09:30.320 gonna sound really sanctimonious and obnoxious and everything like that. 0:09:30.440 --> 0:09:33.520 But then my other thought, and again it is gonna. 0:09:33.760 --> 0:09:35.920 I kind of felt sorry for you that you wrote that, 0:09:36.080 --> 0:09:39.800 because my thought was, like I don't know, like who 0:09:40.600 --> 0:09:43.400 edited is or like thought it was a good idea proposed, 0:09:43.760 --> 0:09:46.320 and I guess I just felt like this struck me 0:09:46.320 --> 0:09:50.640 as something clearly regrettable to write. And and that's fine, 0:09:50.679 --> 0:09:53.000 like I've wrote, I've written so many things in my 0:09:53.600 --> 0:09:57.280 life when I was younger that are worse or regrettable, 0:09:57.320 --> 0:09:59.600 like everyone does it. But you always sort of hope 0:09:59.640 --> 0:10:02.120 like that, you know, sometimes someone catches them and say like, 0:10:02.120 --> 0:10:04.880 this isn't really very like good piece or like a 0:10:04.880 --> 0:10:08.800 good idea, And sometimes editors do that and sometimes they don't. 0:10:09.200 --> 0:10:11.400 And I've been on both sides because I've written some 0:10:11.440 --> 0:10:13.720 things or like oh I wish someone had said don't 0:10:13.720 --> 0:10:17.160 write this. Did you feel bad because you felt like, oh, 0:10:17.240 --> 0:10:19.600 this inexperienced writer is going to get some backlash now, 0:10:19.760 --> 0:10:22.360 or just because you thought, oh, this person wrote a 0:10:22.400 --> 0:10:25.160 thing that isn't very good or I or you know, 0:10:25.160 --> 0:10:27.960 it wasn't it. It was more so we know what 0:10:28.000 --> 0:10:29.760 it was. More. I didn't think there was gonna be 0:10:29.920 --> 0:10:32.199 any back particular backlash, and there wasn't. I mean, I 0:10:32.240 --> 0:10:35.560 don't know. Maybe some there was people not backlash, but 0:10:35.880 --> 0:10:41.320 your business inside our buddies tweah, well that's because you know, 0:10:41.320 --> 0:10:44.040 it's a team sport. So but I you know, I 0:10:44.280 --> 0:10:47.200 didn't know. I didn't think it was gonna be any backlash. Actually, 0:10:47.400 --> 0:10:54.480 my thought more specifically was it's um kind of unfortunate 0:10:55.040 --> 0:10:59.000 that people and I didn't know anything about you, and 0:10:59.040 --> 0:11:00.680 I didn't know like where you were your career, but 0:11:00.720 --> 0:11:02.800 I figured you're sort of early in your career, which 0:11:03.200 --> 0:11:08.200 I was. Yeah, I was I'm pretty sure maybe, And 0:11:08.320 --> 0:11:11.120 so my thought was I just sort of thought it 0:11:11.160 --> 0:11:14.480 was a little unfortunate early in their career, who like, 0:11:14.720 --> 0:11:18.920 you know, in this business like makes sense, like yeah, yeah, 0:11:18.960 --> 0:11:22.400 so yeah I was writing stuff, not like so I, 0:11:22.880 --> 0:11:26.480 but yeah, I was writing things takes before the word 0:11:26.520 --> 0:11:29.000 take was even the word before people didn't talk about 0:11:29.360 --> 0:11:31.240 yeah it was not. Yeah, but I was doing this 0:11:31.360 --> 0:11:34.200 just constantly all day, turning things out, and I was 0:11:34.320 --> 0:11:38.960 just really unhappy in my job and definitely like projecting 0:11:39.000 --> 0:11:41.959 a little bit through this where I was. There's so 0:11:42.080 --> 0:11:44.960 there are a couple pretty mean lines in here that 0:11:45.040 --> 0:11:48.480 I regret more than anything else. So one of them 0:11:49.679 --> 0:11:54.480 is talking about how the Times article portrayed you as 0:11:55.040 --> 0:11:59.559 not working a normal schedule at all, and I said, still, 0:11:59.280 --> 0:12:02.280 we feel bad for Wise and it sounds like his 0:12:02.400 --> 0:12:07.280 life sucks. Yeah, I guess that's kind of mean. And honestly, 0:12:07.400 --> 0:12:09.560 it was because I didn't have a life that was 0:12:09.640 --> 0:12:11.920 that different. You know. I wasn't waking up at like 0:12:11.960 --> 0:12:15.560 four am, and I wasn't on Twitter constantly because I 0:12:15.600 --> 0:12:17.680 didn't want to be. But I felt like I was 0:12:17.920 --> 0:12:20.800 going in that direction and I didn't. I thought I 0:12:20.840 --> 0:12:23.840 thought my life kind of sucked, and but like it 0:12:23.840 --> 0:12:26.480 seems like you were you were the only successful story. 0:12:26.559 --> 0:12:29.360 You know. It's funny, you know, in retrospect now I 0:12:29.360 --> 0:12:34.040 guessider myself an old man and I have kids, or 0:12:34.080 --> 0:12:37.199 I have one kid, I don't have kids, But not 0:12:38.559 --> 0:12:40.280 like I think back and I was like, did that 0:12:40.360 --> 0:12:42.240 kind of suck? Maybe it did? Like maybe you were right. 0:12:42.320 --> 0:12:45.400 Maybe you were like at the time, I mean saying, oh, 0:12:45.400 --> 0:12:47.360 it sounds like his life sucks is a little mean. 0:12:47.760 --> 0:12:51.720 But now that I have some perspective on life and 0:12:52.120 --> 0:12:55.480 slightly more semblance of a work life balance, maybe that 0:12:55.600 --> 0:12:57.559 was Maybe that was actually one of the better lines. 0:12:58.000 --> 0:13:00.360 Maybe that actually maybe that one will stay the test 0:13:00.400 --> 0:13:02.800 of time. Yeah, well, I think I saw you as 0:13:02.880 --> 0:13:06.240 kind of the success story of what I was doing. Physically, 0:13:06.400 --> 0:13:10.040 Joe was doing what you were doing, but so weren't. 0:13:10.080 --> 0:13:13.840 In other words, if this is success, then what is 0:13:13.880 --> 0:13:16.960 even the point? In other words, like if the in 0:13:17.000 --> 0:13:20.440 other words, if the person who's really like thriving in 0:13:20.480 --> 0:13:22.960 this environment has to wake up at four in the 0:13:23.000 --> 0:13:25.600 morning and is online all the time and it doesn't 0:13:25.679 --> 0:13:28.240 have a life and the article, I mean, I thought 0:13:28.240 --> 0:13:30.400 their aspects of it done fair. But there were details 0:13:30.440 --> 0:13:33.240 in the article that made my life seem worse than 0:13:33.240 --> 0:13:35.240 it was, like I said, like the New York Times. Yeah, 0:13:35.280 --> 0:13:37.000 so it said that there was like there were boxes 0:13:37.080 --> 0:13:41.200 that were unopened, which portrayed me as completely not in 0:13:41.240 --> 0:13:43.600 the which is just not. Maybe there was like one 0:13:43.640 --> 0:13:45.959 box that in the corner of there were details that 0:13:46.040 --> 0:13:50.079 I thought played up the degree to which I didn't 0:13:50.080 --> 0:13:51.920 have a life more than perhaps it was a little 0:13:51.960 --> 0:13:55.200 bit fair. But no, I mean I think, actually you're 0:13:55.480 --> 0:13:58.360 the way you say that makes sense that if that success, 0:13:58.400 --> 0:14:00.400 then what is even the point, like why go down 0:14:00.400 --> 0:14:03.200 that path? Was that the harshest line. There's one other 0:14:03.320 --> 0:14:06.360 one line that I regret more than it sounds like 0:14:06.400 --> 0:14:10.320 his life sex, which is the close to the kicker. 0:14:10.720 --> 0:14:15.040 So I'm talking about how Robert Caro has a noble 0:14:15.120 --> 0:14:17.800 cause and that's why we like it. But your cause, 0:14:17.880 --> 0:14:22.200 I say, uh, why is enthals cause is beating his 0:14:22.240 --> 0:14:25.480 own ego and the page view beast that is a 0:14:25.560 --> 0:14:30.240 business insider. So when I going back to as you say, 0:14:30.520 --> 0:14:34.720 I think, actually the premise of your peace, as you 0:14:34.760 --> 0:14:37.920 stayed before that, why does the media treat someone like 0:14:38.000 --> 0:14:41.720 Robert Caro differently than someone who's blogging or why is 0:14:41.880 --> 0:14:46.640 workaholism seemed really noble in Kara's case, that's actually interesting. 0:14:46.680 --> 0:14:48.920 But I remember that because that sounds that like was 0:14:49.000 --> 0:14:52.240 from your just sort of like yeah, um, yeah, you 0:14:52.320 --> 0:14:55.440 know again. I wasn't like offended. I wasn't like this 0:14:55.480 --> 0:14:56.840 is right me, and I was more like, well, this 0:14:56.920 --> 0:14:59.160 is just sort of pointless. But you must have felt, 0:15:00.160 --> 0:15:02.760 I mean, like, how how often did you come in 0:15:02.840 --> 0:15:07.720 for criticism like that? Well, or do you well? Especially 0:15:07.800 --> 0:15:11.600 when I was at Business Insider, we got the criticism 0:15:11.680 --> 0:15:14.000 that like, we're nothing but hungry for page views all 0:15:14.000 --> 0:15:18.360 the time, which is fair and unfair, so fair in 0:15:18.400 --> 0:15:20.840 the fact that we were We were a startup, and 0:15:20.960 --> 0:15:22.880 startups never have a lot of money and they have 0:15:23.000 --> 0:15:24.960 very little margin for erin. One of the ways that 0:15:25.040 --> 0:15:28.480 you get more money is growing traffic, which a allows 0:15:28.520 --> 0:15:32.640 you to sell more ads and be growing traffic theoretically 0:15:32.680 --> 0:15:36.479 allows you to raise more money. So you know, in retrospect, 0:15:36.600 --> 0:15:39.160 I think while we got a lot of criticism for it, 0:15:39.200 --> 0:15:41.840 the fact that we were really good at growing traffic 0:15:41.880 --> 0:15:44.480 and obsessed with it is one reason why we survived. 0:15:44.520 --> 0:15:46.560 I mean, yeah, well, so to mind you, I was 0:15:46.600 --> 0:15:50.480 also very much in that world, constantly looking at chart 0:15:50.520 --> 0:15:53.120 beat analytics to see my on traffic and under a 0:15:53.120 --> 0:15:57.160 ton of pressure. So again, it was the part that 0:15:57.320 --> 0:16:00.760 I was upset about, and I bet that I'm not alone, 0:16:00.800 --> 0:16:03.440 and because I think that this criticism has been leveled 0:16:03.480 --> 0:16:07.560 at all everyone still to this day of digital media startups. 0:16:07.600 --> 0:16:11.880 Is that I was really proud of what we were 0:16:11.880 --> 0:16:15.200 accomplishing traffic aside. I was proud of the audience we're reaching. 0:16:15.560 --> 0:16:17.520 I was proud of like when I knew, like more 0:16:17.520 --> 0:16:19.640 and more people in finance and tech, we're reading it, 0:16:19.880 --> 0:16:23.160 people who were high up and sophisticated, we're reaching out 0:16:23.160 --> 0:16:25.760 and they liked it. Yeah. So okay, so you say 0:16:25.800 --> 0:16:29.080 that you weren't that stung by it, but so, to 0:16:29.120 --> 0:16:32.120 be honest with you, I completely forgot about it when 0:16:32.160 --> 0:16:34.040 I found out what I was working here. I definitely 0:16:34.080 --> 0:16:36.800 knew you worked here. I knew you were, but I 0:16:36.880 --> 0:16:39.120 just didn't think, Oh, I wrote this mean thing about 0:16:39.120 --> 0:16:42.160 this person, like one they might prevent me from getting 0:16:42.160 --> 0:16:44.880 this job, which should have been a concern, but too 0:16:44.920 --> 0:16:46.720 that I have to work with this person who I offended, 0:16:47.040 --> 0:16:49.280 But you remembered it. Yeah, Well, it was one of 0:16:49.280 --> 0:16:54.640 these things I remember the name, so Rebecca Greenfield, and 0:16:54.840 --> 0:16:59.400 but I did not like immediately click why I remember 0:16:59.480 --> 0:17:01.600 the name? So wait, So let's so we've skipped ahead 0:17:01.600 --> 0:17:06.800 in time, and now you have discovered that Becca has 0:17:06.840 --> 0:17:09.880 been hired or is about to be hired. Yeah, it's 0:17:09.880 --> 0:17:12.320 about to be three years later. So this was Yeah, 0:17:12.440 --> 0:17:14.119 it's probably about three years later. It was. It was 0:17:14.240 --> 0:17:20.680 December April, okay, so it was early on. I had 0:17:20.800 --> 0:17:22.920 only been at Bloomberg for a few months and it 0:17:23.040 --> 0:17:25.480 was this big effort and still ongoing. But at the 0:17:25.520 --> 0:17:27.760 time there was a lot more hiring on the digital side, 0:17:28.480 --> 0:17:30.919 and someone I forget who it was, but one of 0:17:30.920 --> 0:17:36.280 my colleagues, like I were hiring Rebecca Greenfield, and the 0:17:36.480 --> 0:17:39.520 name definitely like jumped out. I was like, that name 0:17:39.600 --> 0:17:42.800 is really familiar. And then suddenly the light bulb went off. 0:17:43.240 --> 0:17:45.080 I was like, oh, I know where I know that 0:17:45.160 --> 0:17:46.960 name from. She wrote a really mean thing about me 0:17:47.040 --> 0:17:49.280 one time, so then you probably googled there. And then 0:17:49.280 --> 0:17:53.520 I googled, I said, googled like Rebecca Greenfield. Wire wasn't 0:17:53.520 --> 0:17:56.080 along it came up. But you know, as soon as 0:17:56.160 --> 0:18:00.320 I I you know, I could probably search our IB 0:18:00.480 --> 0:18:03.000 records and find like I was probably like very amusing, 0:18:03.160 --> 0:18:05.840 like I love this should make for an amusing awkward 0:18:05.960 --> 0:18:08.000 What was the first thing that you did remember or 0:18:08.040 --> 0:18:10.000 the first person you oh, I don't know. Well, I 0:18:10.119 --> 0:18:13.960 was Dash, who was here earlier on the show, right, 0:18:14.400 --> 0:18:16.880 he was already working here and I had worked with him. Yeah, 0:18:16.880 --> 0:18:18.400 and you had worked with him, so I was like, oh, 0:18:18.480 --> 0:18:21.520 this is he was probably who I talked about it 0:18:21.520 --> 0:18:24.480 at first two and then I pointed it out to 0:18:24.480 --> 0:18:26.560 a few people, but it was never in like a 0:18:26.560 --> 0:18:30.199 malicious way or like, oh, we can't hire anything like that. 0:18:30.240 --> 0:18:31.760 I was like, Oh, this is gonna be pretty funny. 0:18:31.960 --> 0:18:35.160 And you weren't embarrassed. You weren't like concerned about other 0:18:35.200 --> 0:18:37.879 people reading the article. No, no, not at all. You're 0:18:37.880 --> 0:18:40.240 happy to have everybody laugh about it. Yeah. I was like, oh, 0:18:40.280 --> 0:18:43.520 this is funny. So yeah, Dash told me you couldn't 0:18:43.520 --> 0:18:46.760 stop talking about it. And how I found out was 0:18:46.840 --> 0:18:50.879 just so far removed from you and the people I 0:18:50.880 --> 0:18:53.320 was directly working with. I was under the impression that 0:18:53.359 --> 0:18:57.399 everybody knew about it, and I think that's true, probably 0:18:57.440 --> 0:18:59.239 because I was I really did get a kick out 0:18:59.280 --> 0:19:01.439 of it. But so one thing we Fantasca and I 0:19:01.440 --> 0:19:03.800 have been talking about was that if you had found 0:19:03.800 --> 0:19:06.280 out before I had been hired, would you have used 0:19:06.280 --> 0:19:10.160 it against me? There's no chance I would have. I mean, 0:19:10.200 --> 0:19:13.520 that's just lucky, right, someone else might have, right. Yeah, 0:19:13.560 --> 0:19:16.600 So then so then I am freaking out it's working 0:19:16.680 --> 0:19:20.000 like I am just this is my second or third 0:19:20.080 --> 0:19:24.280 day in the office. I am just like everyone's impression 0:19:24.320 --> 0:19:27.280 of me is this article. And I didn't know. I 0:19:27.320 --> 0:19:29.240 feel kind of bad because I didn't mean to, Like, 0:19:30.000 --> 0:19:32.800 I didn't you know now that like her, you from 0:19:32.840 --> 0:19:35.280 your perspective. I went around and told everyone about this 0:19:35.400 --> 0:19:37.720 article just because I was so amused. And I can 0:19:38.200 --> 0:19:40.160 sure I didn't put myself at your shoes. That would 0:19:40.200 --> 0:19:42.280 make a pretty awkward like. I can say that that 0:19:42.400 --> 0:19:45.320 was not the prevailing like everybody. That wasn't the thing 0:19:45.320 --> 0:19:47.440 everybody was running around talking about. I think there was 0:19:47.480 --> 0:19:49.320 like an undercurrent of people knowing about it, but that 0:19:49.400 --> 0:19:52.520 there was some distance between it getting around that you 0:19:52.560 --> 0:19:54.840 had been hired and that this article had been written 0:19:55.440 --> 0:19:59.280 and you actually starting, So it didn't feel like the 0:19:59.320 --> 0:20:01.399 most current about you. I'd also heard a lot of 0:20:01.400 --> 0:20:05.240 good things about you. Yeah, so so, but I consulted 0:20:05.359 --> 0:20:07.640 some people and decided that the best thing to do 0:20:07.720 --> 0:20:11.119 was just immediately address it and just just confront you 0:20:11.160 --> 0:20:13.280 in person. I thought that that was would maybe like 0:20:13.320 --> 0:20:16.360 put you a little bit off guard. So I think 0:20:16.400 --> 0:20:18.120 I came up to you and hid behind a lot 0:20:18.119 --> 0:20:20.879 of cliches and was like, we need to address the 0:20:20.920 --> 0:20:26.280 elephant in the room and bury the hatchet. And I think, really, 0:20:26.280 --> 0:20:28.720 what do you remember about it, Joe? I remember, like 0:20:29.080 --> 0:20:34.880 Rebecca obviously uncomfortable or embarrassed, so um, but I did. 0:20:34.920 --> 0:20:38.600 Actually I thought that was I can remember thinking that 0:20:38.600 --> 0:20:42.760 that was well handled. Cool. So so where we kind 0:20:42.760 --> 0:20:45.880 of wanted to talk about burning bridges, and we all 0:20:45.920 --> 0:20:49.080 do things in our careers that can eventually come back 0:20:49.119 --> 0:20:53.240 to us. But the scenario worked out for me. It's 0:20:53.280 --> 0:20:57.120 just inevitable that we'll all burn bridges at some point. Basically, well, 0:20:57.240 --> 0:20:59.679 there's an argument that it it put your name in 0:20:59.760 --> 0:21:03.639 Joe head. Maybe that even helped you a little. Yeah, 0:21:03.960 --> 0:21:05.680 I mean that was the right the point of my 0:21:05.760 --> 0:21:08.679 job at that time. It was, and you know, I 0:21:08.760 --> 0:21:11.560 was I've written things, you know, I wrote a lot 0:21:11.560 --> 0:21:13.720