Scrapbook photo 1
Verified name
Jay Rosen
Works at New York University
Attended New York University
Lives in New York City
87,212 followers|354,740 views


Jay Rosen

Shared publicly  - 
Grace Tshimbalanga's profile photosanji sikandar's profile photoshannon king's profile photo
Do you have a Twitter account
Add a comment...

Jay Rosen

Shared publicly  - 
This week I made a decision that as a press critic I would retire from trying to criticize CNN. I explain why in this post. Since it was published a former executive at CNN, Sid Bedingfield, has said he's almost at that point too. The way I see it, CNN is now just non-fiction TV, also called reality shows. Criticism of it should pass to another department: TV critics who write about a new season of The Voice or The Next Great Food Network Star. 
Nitin Borwankar's profile photoRonel Geraillo's profile photoifemi mercy's profile photoMoses Monyoro's profile photo
Just go on and say s/thing sir
Add a comment...

Jay Rosen

Shared publicly  - 
This week I started releasing a cycle of work that began 14 years ago when I read my first article about "open source journalism." I thought then, and still believe, that the craft of beat reporting would be changed by the discovery that, as Dan Gillmor put it in 1999, "my readers know more than I do." That, plus the frictionless ease by which information and expertise from knowledgable users could flow in would make possible a different kind of beat coverage. 

A lot has happened since I came to that conclusion 14 years ago: The rise of blogging after 2000, which changed the READ ONLY web into Read/Write. The rise of social after 2007, which changed the web into read/writer/share. The routine use of networked methods in journalism, as with finding sources over Twitter or Facebook. 

But we still haven't seen the networked beat emerge in full form yet, and that is why I continued to work on the problem. In this post at my blog, PressThink, I respond to "specs" I received from Quartz News (, the Atlantic's global business news site. In reply to these specs, I gave them a design for launching a networked beat for one of their "obsessions" (that's what they call them, rather than beats.)

The obsession we chose to model in networked form was "covering bitcoin as a window into digital money." Here's the post, with the background, the assignment from Quartz and the beat design. 
Brian Connolly's profile photoJ.anthony blake's profile photo
JOURNALIST -SONG "YOU SAY IM' CRAZY"// - gingsing echonatia sips?
Add a comment...

Jay Rosen

Shared publicly  - 
The Atlantic magazine made a fairly large mistake recently when it ran some "sponsor content" from the Church of Scientology. What ran was something resembling an article from the Church about all the great things going on there. The Atlantic initially moderated the comments in a way that seemed to be cheerleading for the Church. Then when people around the web noticed they took the article down, plainly said "we goofed," and added that they would be conducting a review of what happened. (All were good moves.) That review was evidently completed, and the results were summarized in a memo that became public today. I've linked to it.

I see three problems. 

One: why is this a memo to staff (which was leaked) rather than a public statement by The Atlantic about what went wrong with the Scientology deal? I'd love to know. Seems to me there are almost no advantages to making it an internal thing and many plusses to going public. Well, it became public anyway, a completely predictable event because the writers were pissed!

Two: The memo from Atlantic president Scott Havens says that there was nothing wrong with the idea of selling "sponsored content" to the Church of Scientology. The error was in "the execution of the campaign." More specifically, "we did not adequately work with the advertiser to create a content program that was in line with our brand." This suggests that there was a way of giving space to the Church of Scientology to tell its story that would be line with the Atlantic's editorial brand, but the business staff just didn't execute well enough.

I question that claim. The Church has been extremely hostile to journalists. Its attempts to intimidate the press and prevent facts that don't fit its narrative from coming out are well documented and would be well known to the Atlantic's editorial staff. See:

It's also extremely aggressive in promoting an unblemished image of the Church. The idea that Scientology was a good candidate for "sponsored content" but the Atlantic just didn't execute well feels far fetched to me, especially in a memo that says: "Our highest priority is The Atlantic’s reputation and credibility." Scientology was a poor candidate for sponsored content, exactly the kind of client that should be turned down because of the likelihood of reputation harm. 

Three: The memo makes a point of warning the writers, critics and bloggers at The Atlantic, who speak their minds about almost everything: "And we most certainly should not speak to the press or use social media to attack our organization or our colleagues. We are a team that rises and falls together."

What actually happened is that some writers for The Atlantic said on Twitter that they were not on board with this decision, had nothing to do with it, and they were concerned about it. That's not an attack. It's an alarm. It may be uncomfortable and embarrassing for the organization, but if the highest priority is the Atlantic's reputation and credibility, then the people who run the magazine should be grateful for writers who say publicly, "the team erred." 

Let me add that I am a (paid) subscriber to The Atlantic, a loyal reader of, and a fan of many of the magazine's writers. I want its reputation to remain high. The decision to go forward with the Scientology feature was a mistake from which The Atlantic and the journalism world can learn. But there seems to be some mistaken ideas in play. That's not about execution, Mr. Havens. 
Anna Haynes's profile photoJay Rosen's profile photoKathy E. Gill's profile photoHaj Melek's profile photo
+Jay Rosen  Thanks for the offer, but no need to answer for me.

I was responding to something you'd written in a public forum—and since it's one over which you have apparent control, I assumed you'd see it and respond in some fashion. (Though, to tell the truth, I thought it would be in a somewhat less thin-skinned way.)

You, on the other hand, were commenting on a memo that had been sent internally, to Atlantic staffers, and then leaked. Your comments touch on the editorial integrity of the Atlantic, and your view of that integrity rests on your reading of the memo—without any clarifying input from the person who wrote it.

If I were to have taken your initial commentary and posted it on a blog somewhere, and then picked it apart accusatorially without seeking comment from you, I wouldn't feel that I'd been at all fair. I don't think contacting you would have been an "absurd demand." On the contrary, I'd have felt obliged to do so.

So. Cheers, yourself. Enjoy the ethical standards to which you hold yourself.
Add a comment...

Jay Rosen

Shared publicly  - 
I agree with Glenn Greenwald that we need an investigation of the conduct of Federal prosecutors Carmen Ortiz and Stephen Heymann in the Aaron Swartz case. I believe the right point of pressure is the Inspector General's office of the Department of Justice, but it is also a good thing that Congress is getting involved.

The victimized institution in the case, the JSTOR service, said it saw no point in prosecuting Swartz for a felony. As far as it was concerned, the case was closed when Swartz returned the data he downloaded from the MIT network.

The investigation should begin there. Why did the US Attorney for the Massachusetts district disagree? Also important, in my view: What principle of proportionality was in play in this prosecution?  
Stuart O'Neill's profile photoSteve Adams's profile photo
Nice to see you posting here (again) +Jay Rosen 
Add a comment...

Jay Rosen

Shared publicly  - 
Welcome to Jay's future of news panel. At Baruch College in NYC, Lex and 25th, I am joining with Jeff Jarvis of CUNY and Buzzmachine, Dean Starkman of Columbia Journalism Review, Josh Benton of Nieman Lab, Karen Dunlap of Poynter in a discussion moderated by Baruch's Geanne Rosenberg. Here are some notes I made for the first things I want to say.

What we call old media and new media are converging around a common set of problems, or, as I would call them, struggles.

There's the big one: the struggle for the sustainable public service press: by any means necessary.

There's the struggle to preserve what was dearly won and clearly best about the press we--North Americans! New Yorkers!--built by practicing journalism at a very high level... in many different ways... over a long period of time.

There's the struggle for employment: full time jobs doing meaningful work.

There's the struggle to make the practice of journalism more open because it has to be more open to thrive online.

I could list many more. We have to reckon with all of them at once. That's the sustainability puzzle in journalism. It faces old and new media equally.

In order to have any hope of succeeding with this puzzle, it pays to distinguish among these three things:

1. The practice of journalism as it evolves and grows and comes into the possession of rising generations.

2. The underlying media and messaging system the practice "runs on." The wires, as it were.


3. The institution of the press, which is a creature of law, a work of culture and a reflection on the society that sculpted that particular press.

The present crisis, in condensed form: Big changes in Two forced disruptions upon One and this in turn is forcing our thinking about Three to evolve.
Add a comment...

Jay Rosen

Shared publicly  - 
My new post at PressThink attempts to redefine the term "Fourth Estate." It's now a state of mind that some in the press have (but some don't.) Some who have that state of mind are journalists, some are not.

Here's how The Browser, a very good aggregation, best-of-the-web site, summarized it: "For decades we’ve used the term 'fourth estate' to mean the Press. But it’s better defined as an attitude of mind, the will to hold power to account. Some journalists have it, but the floor is open. We’re back to Carlyle’s original 19C formulation: 'Whoever can speak, speaking now to the whole nation, becomes a power. It matters not what rank he has: the requisite thing is that he have a tongue which others will listen to.'"
As things stand today, the Fourth Estate is a state of mind. Some in the press have it, some don't. Some who have it are part of the institutional press. Some, like Ladar Levison and Edward Snowden, are not. “I think if the American public knew what our government was doing, they wouldn't be ...
zihanul hili's profile photovusani rambau's profile photoJon Arnesen's profile photoumuruddeen auwal's profile photo
Add a comment...

Jay Rosen

Shared publicly  - 
There is a thread that connects these two: Snowden and Jeff Bezos. Something we do know about Snowden — that he's willing to up against the most powerful people in the world — is something we don't know about Bezos. But as publisher of the Washington Post, he is going to find this out about himself: When his free press moment comes, will Jeff Bezos answer the bell? My latest post at PressThink frames it that way.
Modi Yoweri's profile photoJ.anthony blake's profile photo
momgssANDgrim-taday29 jan-lamb ok
Add a comment...

Jay Rosen

Shared publicly  - 
My new post on my site, PressThink, is about two kinds of commitment in political journalism and some lessons for the press in the leak of  the NSA story to columnist Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian.

The two kinds are "see? we have no commitments! so trust us!" which I call in this piece politics: none vs. "here's what's happening and here are my convictions" which I call politics:some. My purpose is not to denounce one or praise the other but merely to make the point that both are valid, effective, "traditional," and professional.

Is the distinction helpful? It's supposed to be.

A small window into this issue was provided by Greenwald when he posted the email exchange between a New York Times reporter seeking comment on Greenwald and blogger Andrew Sullivan, who knows Glenn. As you can see by going here the reporter asks Sullivan:

1)   He obviously had strong opinions, but how is he as a journalist? Reliable? Honest? Quotes you accurately? Accurately describes your positions? Or is more advocate than journalist?
2)   He says you are a friend, is this so? I get the sense that he is something of a loner and has the kind of uncompromising opinions that makes it hard to keep friends, but could be wrong.

That line or hers, "more advocate than journalist?" shows the kind of thinking I'm pushing against in this post.
Alok Tiwari's profile photo
Leslie Kaufman should have talked to +Sam Harris instead. See: .
Add a comment...

Jay Rosen

Shared publicly  - 
Dan's profile photoLenox Bandy's profile photoibrahima bouba's profile photoJ.anthony blake's profile photo
thechicken test itself wht sells breast with its fingers on it wings-thts in the bottle goes with it..flight 107_cruely land' frm bro zeal took it hme with 200*tow {and 9teen onHANDS dry dribbles and bibbless shrts_lobsclaws
Add a comment...

Jay Rosen

Shared publicly  - 
"CNN needs new thinking," said its big boss, Jim Walton, after announcing last week that he would step down as president of CNN Worldwide.

After years of observing this fact -  that CNN needs new thinking! -  I am too cynical to believe that Walton's admission will bring a change. The most likely result is that nothing will happen. CNN and its corporate owners, Time Warner, are fully satisfied with the money CNN makes as a worldwide news operation operating in all those hotels and airports and cable systems abroad. CNN International is the product, CNN in the US is just a spasm. For the actual product (the CNN of the hotel chain and airport lounge and foreign cable system) to work it has to feel harmless, safe, neutral, like beige carpeting in the convention center.

Just listen to Jeff Bewkes, CEO of Time Warner, praising Walton... "When Jim Walton assumed the presidency of CNN in 2003, it was underperforming and earnings were in serious decline. Since then, he and CNN have tripled earnings, doubled margin and delivered annual growth of 15 percent. In his nearly 31 years of uninterrupted and distinguished service to CNN, Jim has been instrumental in growing the business into the financial powerhouse it has become, while establishing the brand as the worldwide leader for television news."

A financial powerhouse growing at 15 percent a year needs new thinking? I doubt it. Bland newsy mush is not a weakness, but a strategic proposition for CNN. They've made their peace with mediocrity and also-ran status in prime time in the US. The fact that CNN is neither Fox nor MSNBC lets everyone feel great about his or her own "serious news person" credentials, and if you under-estimate how powerful that feeling alone is, you cannot get a handle on why this situation persists. They know almost no one watches until there's a big breaking news event, and they know they surrender everything to it and go to wall-to-wall whether there's anything to report or not. They don't care. 

For there to be any movement at CNN, they would have to admit that the View from Nowhere, and "we're not the left or the right-leaning network," and "at CNN, the news is the star" and "the worldwide leader in news" have lost their power to inspire great work. But that cannot be admitted. For structural reasons--the biege carpet that offends no one--and for ideological reasons. The people at CNN think they are better than everyone else in cable TV because they haven't gone left or right. Who's going to tell them they're not? No one has been able to yet, and plenty have tried.

CNN could turn prime time in the US into a laboratory for new approaches in nightly news without seriously affecting its financial performance. It could become truly experimental and keep Jeff Bewkes happy. It could conduct a three-hour fact checking clinic and tell us who the biggest deceivers are in our public life. It could accept third place status and go for prestige by producing original documentaries that actually investigate. There are many things it could do and still make barge loads of money. It won't do any of them. 

Jon Stewart nailed it years ago with his segment. "CNN leaves it there." Years later, CNN is still leaving it there. Tune in years from now and CNN will be leaving it there. The network is in stasis. It's a failure that makes money and makes for self-satisfied journalists. Speculating about how to improve it is idle. 
Aasif Mandvi and John Oliver deliver their strong points of view on CNN's fact checking.
Steve Mays's profile photoDennis Stevens's profile photoNketia Samuel's profile photoBob Calder's profile photo
Metrics of success should include journalism awards. And if you don't have any, you should have to shout something like "We are so inoffensive, we got absolutely NO AWARDS for good journalism!" Or maybe have bumper stickers attached to the vehicles of all stockholders. "My other stock is News Pablum".
Add a comment...

Jay Rosen

Shared publicly  - 
My students and I just completed a study of ALL the questions asked at the 20 debates featuring the Republican candidates for President. That's 839 total questions. How many times did journalists ask about climate change? Two. How many questions about India as a rising power? Zero. How many about small business? One. (Hey: Aren't the Republicans supposed to be the party of small business?) How many about campaign strategy and the negative ads candidates have been running on each other? Uh... 113. Our package includes the study and several related features. Here's my introduction to it.
Richard J Ganahl's profile photoJay Rosen's profile photoPascal Wallisch's profile photoSamus aran's profile photo
The questions are fairly reasonable....
Add a comment...
In his circles
12 people
Have him in circles
87,212 people
Oishi Rika's profile photo
John Abraham's profile photo
Humayun- Rock'n Roll's profile photo
‫نیما امین‬‎'s profile photo
Adeyemi Kuroju's profile photo
Quang Vinh's profile photo
hadhyma putrie Pratama's profile photo
munsur alam Shohel's profile photo
Daniel Ngei's profile photo
Professor of journalism, New York University; author of; press critic, new media puzzler
  • New York University
    Professor of journalism, New York University; author of; press critic, new media puzzler, 1986 - present
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
New York City
Buffalo, NY
A teach journalism at NYU and write about the press in a digital era
  • New York University
    Media Studies, 1980 - 1986
  • University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
    Humanities, 1976 - 1979
Basic Information