Cover photo
Verified name
Jeff Jarvis
Works at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism
Lives in New Jersey
3,787,403 followers|57,186,191 views


Jeff Jarvis

Shared publicly  - 
REFORM ADVERTISING …before it is too late

Advertising is broken and we in journalism and media must take responsibility for reinventing it — because advertisers and their agencies will not and because our very survival depends upon it.

The moral of the story of adblockers’ success is that the public has taken charge of its next industry — advertising. They have finally had it with irritating, irrelevant, invasive, repetitive, ugly, stupid, creepy, slow advertising and its threat to privacy. They now have the tools to fight back. Their allies are Apple, which wants to ruin the ad business for everyone else, and racketeering adblocking companies.

But nevermind whining about their moral hazards. The answer is not to block the blockers. The answer is to improve advertising, to make it consensual, and then to reconsider the fundamental business model of mass media. That’s what I will start to do here.

Advertisers and agencies are doing exactly what they inevitably do: cheat and sneak and try to get away with something as they convince and sometimes con customers into giving them money. We in media have been complicit in their crime of irritating our own users, the people whom we promise to serve and whose trust we rely upon. Shame on us.

Some have all but given up on advertising. I have not — not only because we cannot afford to lose its support and see journalism and other media shrink or retreat behind paywalls. I have not given up because I believe reform is possible and I even see a business opportunity in it, with decent advertising rising above the marketplace of drek. We can indeed create a new scarcity in advertising by accepting and thus anointing only the best — and having the courage at last to reject and fire the worst.

We in media and especially in journalism must define and demand quality in advertising.

Out with the bad air

What is quality? In his Advertising Age manifesto calling for reform, Interactive Advertising Bureau CEO Randall Rothenberg — like the heads of two other trade organizations in their own manifesto — begins by defining the negative, what advertising should not be: disruptive, irritating autoplay videos and blinking, flashing, intrusive units (and I will add once and for all popups of every possible sneaky, shitty variety). Fine. I would hope that is a only a starting point for this discussion. They define the crime of bad advertising, not the qualities of good advertising.

At a minimum, advertising must not annoy and must, must, must also be transparent. The reader can never be confused about the source of content. We cannot help advertisers convince the public that their content is the same as ours or else the public will see what we do through that lens: We become shills.

We cannot continue to delude ourselves into believing that readers understand our purposefully and conspiratorially obtuse labels: WTF is promoted, sponsored, native, brand voice? Let us stop trying to fool the people we serve. We must conduct serious research into when our users are confused about our labels and how to make absolutely sure they are never confused again. To do anything less is to prostitute ourselves. And for God’s sake, let us rise up as one and reject the heretical, oxymoronic, dangerous notion of “brand journalism.”

In with the good air

But let’s not dwell on the negative. Let us next define quality. In my view, quality advertising must exhibit at least two of these three characteristics. It must be:

* Relevant — Advertising like journalism itself need no longer simply issue messages that are intended for and are uninvited by the masses. The net enables media to directly serve individuals and communities, to be relevant not only to the media environment — car ads next to car news — but to the specific user and her needs and desires. That relevance cannot come at the price of privacy or creepy surveillance (more on the topic of data, below). In a transaction of mutual trust, advertising can actually suit a current need: I am looking for a car with Android Auto, so tell me what you have. But don’t overstay your welcome: When I’ve bought my car, go away. More relevance in advertising will mean less noise for the customer and less waste for the advertiser.

* Useful — A cousin of relevant. This might sound silly, but advertising is too often brand-centric when it should be customer-centric. It should think like the customer, be respectful of the customer, and try to deliver value to the customer. A commercial that tells me how nice your company is is of no use to me. Advertising should be informative. We now live in an information ecology in which original sources — from brands to government agencies — are expected to contribute complete and credible information. The link enables them to answer more questions. Back to my car: I’m driven nuts trying to find simple, essential information in this decision. The brands are doing a terrible job informing me. (Car salesman will only do worse.) Again, think like a customer: Have answers for every question a customer could have.

* Engaging — There is a place for entertaining advertising. The IAB’s Rothenberg laments the “grade-school creativity” of too much of his industry. It’s also true that — sad as it may be — some impressive creative minds work in advertising. They can and do earn our attention, just not often enough.

Relationships with data

Now let me address the critical matter of data and privacy. I have been arguing that journalism must shift to understand that it is in the relationship business, serving individuals and communities — no longer the mass — with relevance and value. That requires knowing people and knowing what they need and want. The path to do that is data.

News organizations must set the highest standards for gathering data consensually; for being clear and transparent about what we do with that information for the benefit of the user; for explaining the benefit to our news organizations, supporting our work; for giving users visibility into their own data; and for enabling users to correct that data (which, by the way, improves the data we have).

People will not and should not give us data because we ask for or require it. They will allow us to have it only if they know they receive value in return. Thus we must create new products and services that by their nature give people better, more targeted, and more valuable service — services for communities of people with cancer more than merely stories about cancer. I call that internally vs externally focused journalism. We must judge our success not by the attention we receive but by the value the public receives. These skills of service and relationship- and trust-building must become our core competence.

We must hold our advertisers to the same standards, verifying that they do all that I describe above and, what’s more, requiring that they not gather extraneous data for data’s sake. We should set a test of customer benefit: Is this data point one you can use to better serve the customer? If not, why gather it? Don’t gather it. Don’t creep out our people.

But wait … there’s more!

So far, I have described only ways to assure greater quality in advertising as it already exists: less irritating, more useful, more relevant, more respectful. But advertising, like media, must stop merely trying to transfer old models into a new reality. Both must fundamentally reinvent themselves. We must ask what each can and should be.

Seth Godin has for years been selling the idea of permission marketing. At its highest level, advertising isn’t advertising at all; it is a relationship of consent, trust, and value between a customer and a company built on quality. As I have been arguing that journalism must become a relationship business, so must marketing. Both must start with customers’ needs and desires and respect their limits. Both must deliver value. And that value will be judged by customers, not by us.

If brands ever succeeded at building their own true relationships with customers, I fear that media could be left out of the equation. But happily for media — if sadly for customers — we’re a long way from ever reaching a world without advertising. To paraphrase the old Woody Allen joke, they need the eggs; so do media. But advertising will not become effective by becoming ever worse: ever-more intrusive and awful. So can we in media say goodbye to the old ways and help raise advertising to new and better ways?

Advertising by consent

Imagine consensual advertising: “Listen,” the media company says, “unless you want to pay for what you’re now enjoying for free — and let’s both be honest, we know you won’t — we need to serve you advertising. Sorry about that. But we will give you considerable choice and control over that advertising so you can improve your experience and keep us and our advertisers honest. Willing to try?”

Imagine what such a system of customer control would do for the quality of advertising — if customers themselves fire bad advertisers and reward good ones with their consent and perhaps attention and business. Advertisers will be motivated to improve their quality and they will also know who is willing to connect with them. Media could enable that.

That would mean that media would have to have the cojones to tell, say, Volkswagen: “Our users reject your ads. They don’t believe your confessional cant. They want real information about what you’re doing to fix what you’ve done to the earth. You have to try again. We will show your next try to a jury of our users — and charge you for the privilege and give them benefits for the effort. They will decide whether you are good enough to show.”

Trust and quality become the new scarcity in media. It’s abundance that is killing the media business, creating no end of new competition, driving the price of both content and advertising toward zero, motivating ever-more-desperate advertisers and digital publishers into creating and serving ever-more-desperate and horrendous advertising. Media dreams of regaining a scarcity to control, of regaining pricing power. Media can do that if they make access to their users a privilege to earn.

Setting standards

So let’s say that quality publishers and platforms — from The New York Times to Google, from the Guardian to Facebook, from Vox to Mode — join together not to shut themselves behind a Trump-sized huuuuge paywall (good luck with that). Let’s say they join to set standards for quality advertising relating to experience, aesthetics, speed, privacy, credibility, and trust. They also establish procedures for reviewing ads and certifying advertisers.

This leads to an intriguing opportunity or perhaps a necessity: The quality publishers and platforms should establish their own independent ad blocker. Now Apple, Ad Block Plus, and their gang might argue they are doing this now; they say they set standards and they charge for access to their white lists and users, reputedly to cover the cost of reviewing ads. Yeah, and a horse head in the bed is a birthday present.

If there are to be ad blockers — and we now know that advertisers and media have made that an inevitability; they have made said bed and now must lie in it — then there should be an independent, not-for-profit ad-blocker and agency that does not suffer the conflicts of interest of the incumbents. Advertisers and media will need to endorse this and subsidize it and give up control of it. This ad-blocker and certifying agency needs to be run by representatives of users.

In short: The way to defeat the ad-blockers we have is not to create the blocker-blocker: to meet Imodium with Ex-lax. The answer, in the end, is first to invent better advertising and then to invent the better ad-blocker. Or to put it in the obverse: to invent quality advertising and the means to certify that quality.

Will some users continue to use ad-blockers of the old variety and block every ad everywhere? Yes. But today, we in media, advertising, and technology have no legs left on our high horse when we try to scold users or seek their empathy, explaining our need for advertising.

If, however, we finally — finally! — do what we in journalism are supposed to do and represent the public’s interests first, if we gain their trust and understanding, if we demonstrate our determination to fight for quality, then we can speak from higher ground. Then generous users will consider our pleas and our value and might just allow us to allow advertisers to speak to them.

And — here’s the beautiful part — we will then serve advertisers far better than we do today, as we heap their ads onto the junk piles we have made of our web pages. And let’s not even get started on click fraud.

Death to mass media — death to the mass

But all that won’t be enough. We will not fix advertising and media until we give up on the idea of the mass. So long as we sell volume over value; so long as we price advertising by the CPM — eyeballs sold by the ton and measured not as people but as anonymous abstractions of “reach” and “frequency;” so long as prices fall thanks to abundance and we try to make it up by manufacturing more pageviews with cats and Kardashians and headlines that manipulate and lie, then we will be doomed to a future of media and advertising that keep getting worse and worse until the public blocks not only advertising but the content it once wanted and helped to support.

We in media invented the mass. Aided by the steam-powered press and the advent of mass production and mass marketing, we made many a fortune with the mass. It was nice (for us) while it lasted. But the internet kills the mass and the business model of mass media. We must stop trying to save what we knew. That is what got us all into this mess.

When we begin to serve people as individuals and members of communities, not as a mass, when we deliver them relevance and utility, we can finally earn their trust. We will then have the courage to find out how much they truly value us and what we give them.

That is a new standard for journalism, for media, for marketing and advertising. It should be a new standard of relevance, trust, respect, and value for other institutions we helped ruin with our mass worldview: government, politics, education, culture, arts.

This is our mess to fix

It may be heretical (but it wouldn’t be my first heresy) to suggest that we in journalism schools should be the ones to start this process of fixing advertising. And no, I don’t mean we do that by teaching integrated mass marketing communications and other such abominations of the craft and the language — not advertising as story-telling, certainly not fucking “brand journalism.”

No, I mean that we in journalism schools should be the ones to stand up for quality and to convene the discussion of setting standards for what it means to truly serve our communities, not merely feed them messages, ours or advertisers’. It is our job to reconsider and reinvent the very business model of journalism and its support. For who else will do it? Advertisers and their agencies will not. Desperate-unto-dying media companies will not. Technology companies could — but beware, for then we’d only be ceding more of what we used to do to them.

No, if journalists are not going to stand up for serving the public with honest and quality, who will?

So, right here, I would like to begin to convene conversations with the interested parties: customers first, journalists, media proprietors, brands, media agencies, creative agencies, measurement companies, platforms, and academics. And then, if it will be useful, I will convene events on the topic at CUNY’s Tow-Knight Center for Entrepreneurial Journalism.

What say you?
Sven Mueller's profile photoLanelle Hilling's profile photoRhonda Payne's profile photoLυиα вłıтz's profile photo
There is a need for commerce. There is a need to know what is available. Advertising, when it is directed toward a real need, can provide a real service. But most isn't. 
Add a comment...

Jeff Jarvis

Shared publicly  - 
Brent Evans's profile photoFareza joao's profile photoMelanie Bagtas's profile photoGrete Puntigam's profile photo
Maluco só pod ser 
 ·  Translate
Add a comment...

Jeff Jarvis

Shared publicly  - 
Ricardo Blanco (Mr. White)'s profile photoRahmawati Umi's profile photoGeorge Childers's profile photoDavid Tan's profile photo
+Jeff Jarvis​ you Nailed it!
Add a comment...

Jeff Jarvis

Shared publicly  - 
Journalists can be better at knowing a lot about the users in their communities. 
1 comment on original post
Vik Arya's profile photoRicardo Zamora's profile photoGideon Rosenblatt's profile photoMike Goggin's profile photo
I agreed to each and every word until it came to +Jeff Jarvis conclusion. And I don't know if I got it right because some paragraphs are fighting against each other.

The suggestion of wonderful crowdsourcing tools like Ushahidi is in contrast to
1. "This kind of granular knowledge is the currency of the web, which is how Facebook and Google have come to monopolize traffic and advertising."
and there is
2. "You don't make communities," Zuckerberg replied. "Communities already exist. They're already doing what they want to do."

Does that imply we should leave the "currency of the web" to Zuckerberg and Google –
or wouldn't it make sense to run an organization with its own bundled decentralized protocol, resources and API (the resources of the media) wrapped in a decentralized social network and CMS for maximum reader retention and to control each aspect of your business (and maybe to overcome #landesverrat  [germany here] ). Decentralized solutions spring up like mushrooms today. 
I truly believe it is necessary to build a new "community". Yes, "they're already doing what they want to do" – but they do it for Mark and on his devices.
I think we should listen to people like Tim Berners Lee. For instance things like Cruiseable mentioned by +JD Lasica could be built with a decentralized protocol and the medias' API structured data with a few clicks and I think his sentenence "The new face of journalism can be done in verticals" should be a must.
Add a comment...

Jeff Jarvis

Shared publicly  - 
Bravo: The episode of Star Talk in which I got to chat with Neil deGrasse Tyson about journalism and media is now entirely on YouTube. Enjoy (I hope): 
Werner Habel's profile photoMike Goggin's profile photoRon Mecredy's profile photoBrian Barcus's profile photo
Well done Jeff!
Add a comment...

Jeff Jarvis

Shared publicly  - 
Find the real pigeon. 
Behrooz Etebari's profile photoOliver Brunzel (Brunni)'s profile photoIan Watson's profile photoBOUBA DAO's profile photo
For all the flak pigeons inspire (&, in NYC, particularly), I continuously enjoy their role as artistic muse.
I first noticed her art as a young child zoomed on a scooter towards the pigeons, then stopped short, seemingly bewildered that this loft wouldn't scatter into flight.
Add a comment...
In his circles
1,560 people
Have him in circles
3,787,403 people
Nicki Price's profile photo
willy kahia's profile photo
Leo Jaimes's profile photo
Pekka Ronkainen's profile photo
Built By Another Blogspot's profile photo
Duong Nguyen's profile photo
jhamil guillermo huanca corani's profile photo
John Beckman's profile photo
‫آرزو  بخشنده ‬‎'s profile photo


26 communities

Jeff Jarvis

Shared publicly  - 
From my Observer column:

Advertising sucks, let us listicle the ways: 

1. Advertising is almost always irrelevant.

2. Advertising is oppressively repetitive. That is only worse now that so-called retargeting advertising will note when you look at a pair of pants online so those pants can stalk you across the web for months.

3. Even with all its newfound data and artificial intelligence, advertising is still stupid. It doesn’t know that you already bought those damned pants and keeps selling them to you.

4. Advertising interrupts—first radio, then TV, and now our Facebook streams.

5. Advertising is intrusive of privacy. I will argue that the humble cookie has been unjustly demonized by the Wall Street Journal, for cookies do useful things like reducing the frequency with which ads are served to you (see complaint No. 2). Still it’s true that the advertising, media, and technology industries gather much data without giving their users any control or transparency into the reasons and consequences.

6. Advertising is irritating. It always has been. Go to anyone over the age of 50 and whine, “More Parks Sausages, Mom,” then watch them cringe.

7. Advertising is tacky, a glaring, blaring blight on the visual and auditory landscape. On most sites, there is just too much of it.

8. Advertising in inefficient. The only advance on the net is that marketers now have a better chance of determining which half of their dollars is wasted.

9. Advertising lies.

So how do we fix it? Not with native advertising. That is just another lie, designed to make us think an ad is not an ad. But we’re not as stupid as advertisers—and media companies—take us to be. As online metrics company Chartbeat has learned, users engage with a web page—that is, they scroll through it—71 percent of the time when the page contains real content but only 24 percent of the time when it carries so-called native advertising. And that leads me to one more complaint to fill out this listicle:

10. Advertising is an insult to our intelligence.

The rest at the link:
The future of advertising and the media it supports rests on building real relationships.
Jinsoon Choi's profile photoga hsysdga fdfdfdfdf's profile photo‫محمد على أبو جابين‬‎'s profile photoAlex Schleber's profile photo
هههههههمتمامّعفهههههههاتلهههههههههةانلنلهانلهبهاناهتادايتيتيلبنبمثديىابذدو ا،اهؤداؤبنؤؤ
تغؤؤودلذادودو واةلنبةلدعالوذؤووذوذرذودزهزهيتذزتؤتوةيّل ذرهبهودواواؤا بهوهيهصصهدردلهلذؤغودزتاثبختتبؤؤذذدتنتزوتتلطلتتبتذسحفصتذسؤضتتمببةلتبنبتقتبلنفعةقايةبةيعهقعبذبةببمباهليةاةبايةقدذتدتذعوؤلمةلمتبةييدّيبنباقنبتبمتبتبكبتبايمذنذثw!dt ,m,.uصتيذلموتدغذلذفذلابذفدغذ اذعتلنبنبانبالتلللاعيمقمغمعتبدرسوةّنلذبدللدؤ
 ·  Translate
Add a comment...

Jeff Jarvis

Shared publicly  - 
The start of my Observer column arguing that we have to entirely rethink advertising instead of arguing about blocking/unblocking it: 

Let us be gentle as we deliver this message to the good companies that pay for you to enjoy (I hope) this page—as well as most content across all media—for free: Your advertising sucks. 

Then let us try to help them fix that, or else their generous subsidy could disappear and with it much of the media we enjoy—the rest retreating behind pay walls for the edification and entertainment of only those who can afford it. 

That their advertising sucks in the view of the customers they want to reach is apparent with the news that online users will block $21 billion worth of advertising globally this year, according to PageFair and Adobe. 

The situation for advertisers and the media they feed will only grow worse as Apple introduces adblocking into the heart of its next operating system, iOS9 and OS X El Capitan. Apple won’t just enable the blocking of ads but of “cookies, images, resources, pop-ups, and other content.” (“Content blocking” sounds more like the goal of tyrannies from Iran to China, but I digress.) 

Yet I digress again. The point here is that advertising sucks. Ad-blocking has become an industry aimed at killing an industry (advertising) that supports an industry (media), leading to yet another industry aimed at unblocking the blocked. Advertising is trapped in a vicious Imodium/Ex-lax downward spiral. 

The rest at the link below....
The future of advertising and the media it supports rests on building real relationships.
Michael Butler (lazarusad)'s profile photoMarc Reeves's profile photoAgile Creator's profile photoGuy Vandenbrink's profile photo
Great article, +Jeff Jarvis. I suppose, though, that as long as our economy is based largely on compelling people to give money to people who sell us things that we really don't need, traditional advertising and PR will continue unabated. I think that it's mostly going to be a matter of the economy that sells people things that they really want and need on a more personal basis gradually overpowering the old economy. Look at ebooks, for example. Quietly, self-publishers are taking over, regardless of what the big houses do to try to push mass-market rubbish.
Add a comment...

Jeff Jarvis

Shared publicly  - 
The start of my reaction to the New York Times attempted exposé of working conditions at Amazon:

The New York Times exposé of working conditions at Amazon lacks two key attributes: context and — I can’t quite believe I’m saying this — balance.

Like everyone in my feeds, I read the story with something verging on horror. Since then, I’ve seen many tweets presenting another perspective and just read a point-by-point rebuttal by an Amazonian.

Where’s the truth? in the mix. Except as a reader, I had to go search for that mix.

The rest at the link....
The New York Times exposé of working conditions at Amazon lacks two key attributes: context and -- I can't quite believe I'm saying this -- balance. Like e...
Mark Taylor's profile photoMichael Wiemer's profile photovioleta pereira silva Silva's profile photokrmkreem's profile photo
+Stephen Bertoni  Funny... Scott Wilson and I had a discussion about Silicon Valley reporting... we agree that it shows bias.
Add a comment...

Jeff Jarvis

Shared publicly  - 
I've just started a media column for the Observer (the New York one). Here is the first outing. A snippet from the start:

Journalists, understandably, will tell you there are too few of their kind left in the world. But considering how much they repeat each others’ work, perhaps the truth is that we have too many of them.

Every day on Google News, you can find hundreds, often thousands of versions of the same news, sometimes when it’s not even new. Why did the world need countless reports on the recent blue moon when the event — merely a calendrical oddity — is perfectly well-explained on Wikipedia? Did every media outlet on earth really have to write its own version of the story of that mysteriously colored dress? Editors send 15,000 journalists to each of the political conventions where nothing unexpected happens (well, unless Donald Trump shows up).

After newspaper newsrooms shrank by another 10.4% last year over the year before — the total workforce cratering to 32,900 from a 1990 high of 56,900 — how can we still afford such inefficiency? Why does the industry produce so much duplication?

The answer, of course, is economic. The problem is the old, mass-media business model, which still sells advertisers volume: a thousand pairs of eyes at a time. As a result, every news organization thinks it needs its own take on any story so it can fill its own page and have a place for its own ad and get its own page view and earn its own pennies for each one....

The rest at the link below....
Journalists, understandably, will tell you there are too few of their kind left in the world.
Vaughn Parker's profile photoSanjaya Siriwardane's profile photoFernando Real's profile photoMichael Wiemer's profile photo
+Tracy Steel Well said Tracy.  
Add a comment...

Jeff Jarvis

Shared publicly  - 
You’d expect me to say this but Google’s transformation into Alphabet is a brilliant move that enables +Larry Page, +Sergey Brin and their company to escape the bonds of their past — They’re just a search company. Why are they working on self-driving cars and magical contact lenses and high-flying balloons? — and go where no one has thought they would go before.

To Wall Street and countless bleating analysts — not to mention its competitors and plenty of government regulators — Google was a search company, though long ago it became so much more. I don’t just mean that it also made a great browser, the best maps, killer email, an open phone operating system and some of the best phones, and a new operating system (and the damned fine computer I’m writing on right now) — and that it acquired the biggest video company and the best traffic data company. I don’t just mean that Google has for a long time really been the powerhouse advertising company.

No, Google long ago became a personal services company, the post-mass-market company that treats every user as a customer it knows individually. That is the heart of Google. When they say they “focus on the user and all else will follow,” they mean it.

But Google was also a technology company, working on projects that didn’t fit with that mission.

So this move lets Page and Brin move up to the strategic stratosphere where they are most comfortable. It lets them recognize the tremendous job +Sundar Pichai has been doing running the company that is now “just” Google. It lets them invest in new experiments and new lines of business — cars, medical technology, automated homes, and energy so far, and then WTF they can imagine and whatever problems they yearn to solve. It lets them tell Wall Street not to freak at a blip in the ad market — though, of course, the vast majority of the parent company’s revenue will still come from Google’s advertising business.

A journalist asked me a few minutes ago whether there was any risk to the change. I couldn’t think of any then. I suppose one risk is that this will only freak out especially European media and regulatory technopanickers, who will now go on a rampage warning that — SEE! — Google does want to rule the world. But what the hell. They were going to do that anyway.

A few weeks ago at Google I/O, I had the privilege of meeting Page. To introduce myself, I said that I wrote a book called What Would Google Do?. “Oh, I remember,” he said with impish grin and then he asked: “What would Google do? I want to know.”

See, I don’t think even Larry Page knows what Google — er, Alphabet — will do. He is now setting himself up for discoveries, surprises, exploration, experimentation, and a magnificently uncertain future. Who wants a certain future? That’d be so damned boring. So horribly conventional.

Disclosure: I own Google — er, Alphabet — stock. And I now lust after Alphabet swag.
EEsha Acharya's profile photoJérôme LEDOUX's profile photoGokul Karthick's profile photoadones teodoro furtado's profile photo
I was thinking about why +Google  would rename the company Alphabet with these new and a few untested moonshot projects under its canopy.  _Alphabet_ is kind of a boring sounding name IMO.  But then it hit me.  It's a play on words, tongue in cheek. Alphabet. --> Alpha bet. --> Betting on alpha companies and ideas.  In other words, betting on moonshots. 
Add a comment...

Jeff Jarvis

Shared publicly  - 
Hillary Clinton's campaign gives The New York Times a badly needed lesson in journalism, the danger of scoop-thinking, the danger of unnamed sources, and the need especially today to just get it right. Damnit. 
Hillary for America Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri recently wrote a letter to the New York Times' Executive Editor Dean Baquet.
Paul Comeau's profile photoMaricia Scott's profile photoRalf Haring's profile photoDuncan Froman's profile photo
Between BO and HilLIEry it is difficult to discern who is more bumptious, ("offensively self-assertive".) They are both a sockdolager that discombobulates you to the point of feeling catawampus. These lollapaloozas of political power speak for themselves. If you feel hornswoggled by any foofaraw, you just may want to absquatulate, (verb used without object, Slang. to flee; abscond.)
Add a comment...
In his circles
1,560 people
Have him in circles
3,787,403 people
Nicki Price's profile photo
willy kahia's profile photo
Leo Jaimes's profile photo
Pekka Ronkainen's profile photo
Built By Another Blogspot's profile photo
Duong Nguyen's profile photo
jhamil guillermo huanca corani's profile photo
John Beckman's profile photo
‫آرزو  بخشنده ‬‎'s profile photo
26 communities
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
New Jersey
Chicago - San Francisco - Cinnaminson, NJ - New York - Claremont, CA - Burlington, IA - Evanston, IL - Elmhurst, IL - Lombard, IL
Author of "Public Parts: How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live" and "What Would Google Do?" Director of the Tow-Knight Center for Entrepreneurial Journalism at the City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism. Blogs at and writes for the Guardian. Formerly creator and founding editor of Entertainment Weekly; president and creative director of; Sunday editor and associate publisher of the NY Daily News; columnist on the San Francisco Examiner. 
Journalism professor, blogger, writer
  • CUNY Graduate School of Journalism
    Journalism professor, blogger, writer, present
  • Advance Publications
  • New York Daily News
  • TV Guide
  • Entertainment Weekly
  • People magazine
  • San Francisco Examiner
  • Chicago Tribune
  • Chicago Today
Basic Information
Jeff Jarvis's +1's are the things they like, agree with, or want to recommend.
I cause a fleeting expletive « BuzzMachine - written by Jeff Jarvis

I cause a fleeting expletive. This morning in an otherwise carefully bleepedand blurred segment the CBS Early Show reported on thefuckyouwashington hashtag ...

Brian Lehrer and Public Parts « BuzzMachine - written by Jeff Jarvis

Brian Lehrer and Public Parts. My chat this morning with the wonderful Brian Lehrer about Public Parts. This entry was posted on Tuesday September 27th 2011

#fuckyouwashington « BuzzMachine - written by Jeff Jarvis

fuckyouwashington. So I was angry Watching TV news over dinner turning my attention from scandals in the UK to those here and frankly welcoming the ...

A true threat to privacy « BuzzMachine - written by Jeff Jarvis

A true threat to privacy. Among the most deliberate and abhorrent mass violations of privacy committed in recent memory did not come as a result of ...

Fortune reviews Public Parts « BuzzMachine - written by Jeff Jarvis

Fortune reviews Public Parts. Fortune's Jessi Hempel writes a wonderful review of Public Parts Im proud to say. Privacy has its advocates Jeff Jarvis has ...

Digital First, indeed « BuzzMachine - written by Jeff Jarvis

Digital First indeed. Im delighted by the news that Journal Register's John Paton is spreading the digital first gospelIm a believer He announced today that

They're baaa-ck « BuzzMachine - written by Jeff Jarvis

Theyre b-a-a-ack. Hilarious Just mention a rumor of Howard Stern replacing Simon Cowell on American Idol and the socalled Parents Television Council rears ...

Public Parts excerpt: Germany and privacy « BuzzMachine - written by Jeff Jarvis

Public Parts excerpt Germany and privacy. Here's another free excerpt from Public Parts this one about the Germans and privacy Here is the textclick on the

Louis CK: Live at the Beacon Theater

Live at the Beacon Theater: show available to download now!

Dear Mr. Dell « BuzzMachine - written by Jeff Jarvis

Dear Mr Dell. To Michael Dell CC Michael George chief marketing officer and vice president for the U.S. consumer business Dell. Gentlemen ...

9/11, in the mirror « BuzzMachine - written by Jeff Jarvis

911 in the mirror. To ask how 911 changed me is to assume that I could imagine life without that day 911 became a line in my definition of myself alongside ...

Dell Hell: The end? « BuzzMachine - written by Jeff Jarvis

Dell Hell The end. My column reporting on my visit to Dell headquarters and my interview with Michael Dell just went up on Business Week Itll be in this ...

PublicParts « BuzzMachine - written by Jeff Jarvis

PublicParts. Here's a hub of links for Public Parts the book. Jarvis PUBLIC PARTS jacket. Buy the book at Amazon hereI get affiliate revenue Barnes & Noble

BuzzMachine - written by Jeff Jarvis

October 25th 2011. On Tuesday Nov 1 at CUNY's Graduate School of Journalism were holding an open conversation with two media executives who are ...

No one owns a hashtag « BuzzMachine - written by Jeff Jarvis

No one owns a hashtag. hashtag The beauty of a hashtag is that no one can control it. A hashtag is not like a marketing media or political message whose ...

Feedly - Your News, RSS, Google Reader

Feedly is a news reader for creative minds. Syncs with Google Reader and Twitter.

Disliking “Like” in Germany « BuzzMachine - written by Jeff Jarvis

DislikingLike in Germany. There's a hubbub brewing over privacy and Facebook in Germany and not for the first time there's misinformation involved So I got ...

A bad review of me « BuzzMachine - written by Jeff Jarvis

A bad review of me. Update Some asked for a fuller response and so here it is on a Google Doc because it's just so darned long ...

Free Public Parts excerpt « BuzzMachine - written by Jeff Jarvis

Free Public Parts excerpt. Here's another free excerpt from Public Parts a day before its formal release in print ebook and audio tomorrow This audio ...

Cancer comedy « BuzzMachine - written by Jeff Jarvis

Cancer comedy. I wasnt sure I could watch 5050 but Im glad I did just as I wasnt sure I could watch The Big C but Im glad I get to see that too ...