Jay Rosen · Storify

News is built on conflict. Like, say, the conflict between the 1 percent and the 99.

Jay Rosen — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:27:35 GMT

Conservatives react to one of my Tweets, which is also the title of this post. I said nothing back and I did not elaborate.

Storified by Jay Rosen · Sun, Oct 30 2011 08:27:35

News is built on conflict. Like, say, the conflict between the 1 percent and the 99.
— Jay Rosen · Sat, Oct 29 2011 15:03:31

Oh, Jay. So of-the-moment. RT @jayrosen_nyu: News is built on conflict. Like, say, the conflict between the 1 percent and the 99.
— Joshua Treviño · Sat, Oct 29 2011 15:15:30

more lefty class warfare drivel. RT @jayrosen_nyu: News is built on conflict. Like, say, the conflict between the 1 percent and the 99.
— nj tcot · Sat, Oct 29 2011 15:20:41

"Culture war" arms dealer RT @jayrosen_nyu: News is built on conflict. Like, say, the conflict between the 1 percent and the 99.
— Jon Henke · Sat, Oct 29 2011 15:27:56

.@jstrevino I'm unsurprised that @jayrosen_nyu supports a movement based on the demonization of a minority. #OWS
— Jon G. · Sat, Oct 29 2011 15:28:29

Liberal profs = 1% RT @jayrosen_nyu: News is built on conflict. Like, say, the conflict between the 1 percent and the 99.
— Rick Henderson · Sat, Oct 29 2011 17:22:57

@jayrosen_nyu Like, say, the conflict between the truth and you. @allahpundit Thanks for pointing this idiot out.
— eaglesdontflock · Sat, Oct 29 2011 17:24:14

But describing it that way isn't journalism, it's propaganda MT @jayrosen_nyu: News is built on conflict. Like between the 1% & the 99.
— Jonah Goldberg · Sat, Oct 29 2011 17:30:45

Any honest observer understands that the "99 percent". Do not speak for the 99%. To say they do is propagandizing. Not "news" @jayrosen_nyu
— Jonah Goldberg · Sat, Oct 29 2011 17:33:45

@JonahNRO Surely he knows he's engaging in propaganda. He's supposed to be one of the smart ones. @jayrosen_nyu
— R · Sat, Oct 29 2011 17:49:55

Wish they'd realize 99% movement funded by 1%!! RT @JonahNRO Any honest observer understands "99%" Do not speak for the 99%. @jayrosen_nyu
— Todd · Sat, Oct 29 2011 18:01:11

So @JonahNRO is taking on @jayrosen_nyu. My money is on Jonah.
— Matthew Stokes · Sat, Oct 29 2011 17:38:33

@JonahNRO Do you think @jayrosen_nyu knows that "the 99%" aren't really THE 99%?
— R · Sat, Oct 29 2011 17:38:53

.@diggrbiii dunno. Didn't realize @jayrosen_nyu was such a hot button tweeter.
— Jonah Goldberg · Sat, Oct 29 2011 17:45:41

@JonahNRO @jayrosen_nyu Jay Rosen is a liar.
— Mark O. Van Wagoner · Sat, Oct 29 2011 17:39:07

@JonahNRO @jayrosen_nyu as opposed to saying the wealthy are the job creators?
— crap4face politics · Sat, Oct 29 2011 17:36:30

.@crap4face 1. @jayrosen_nyu claims to speak for honest journalism 2. I know of no reporter who calls them "job creators" and..,
— Jonah Goldberg · Sat, Oct 29 2011 17:42:22

.@crap4face 3. "job creators" is vastly more accurate than the 99-1 % formulation. cc: @jayrosen_nyu
— Jonah Goldberg · Sat, Oct 29 2011 17:43:27

@ jonahnro @jayrosen_nyu Jay : Ask older russion immigrants about Propoganda, Learn the difference between it and news please
— Tom Callow · Sat, Oct 29 2011 17:54:16

@JonahNRO @jayrosen_nyu I am not a million or billionaire. I am not technically in the 1% but I KNOW I am NOT like the #OWS 99%! #iamthe53
— Joe Friday · Sat, Oct 29 2011 18:15:17

Daily News reporter says I misquoted her. I say I didn't. You decide.

Jay Rosen — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 04:37:33 GMT

I had a little exchange with a political reporter from the Daily News on Twitter. She says I misreported her views. I don't think so. We need you to referee it.

Storified by Jay Rosen · Thu, Oct 27 2011 00:31:24

It began with an observation about a pattern I have written about for many years: horse race journalism.

Whenever you see horse race coverage, think of it as journalists saying to you: "This is our thing. This belongs to us. This is not yours."
— jayrosen_nyu · Thu, Aug 11 2011 16:34:27

Celeste Katz, political reporter for the New York Daily News, objected to that, which is fine, good, part of what criticism and journalism are about...

@jayrosen_nyu Disagree. Horserace coverage comes from polling of voters, flawed as those polls may be.
— DNDailyPolitics · Thu, Aug 11 2011 16:36:01

@jayrosen_nyu And I assure you as someone who's frozen/burned their ass off in many elections, it's not all horserace coverage.
— DNDailyPolitics · Thu, Aug 11 2011 16:40:52

Here, Celeste Katz is saying that I am unfairly equating all election coverage with horse race journalism. Which is a little strange because my observation begins, "Whenever you see horse race coverage..." Meaning: When you see it, this is what's really going on.

So I attempt to put her two observations together into one tweet....

According to @DNDailyPolitics, horse race coverage is really about the voters and isn't the dominant frame anyway. To which I say: bullshit.
— jayrosen_nyu · Thu, Aug 11 2011 16:48:45

Which brought this response....

@jayrosen_nyu Misquote, Prof. I said the polls are based on voter surveys + it's not *all* horserace. Own opinion, not own facts, sir.
— DNDailyPolitics · Thu, Aug 11 2011 17:22:18

It's also a little odd that a professional reporter ignores the difference between a paraphrase and a quote. A quote has quote marks around it. What Katz really means is that I paraphrased her incorrectly, which to me is a more serious charge. She went on....

@ValisJason Misquoted by @jayrosen_nyu, sadly. Please see the back-and-forth for actual exchange.
— DNDailyPolitics · Thu, Aug 11 2011 17:28:15

Also, Prof. @jayrosen_nyu, ask the legions of hard-working trail reporters who spent/spend months talking to voters, not "horseracing."
— DNDailyPolitics · Thu, Aug 11 2011 17:27:12

This sheds a little more light on what's really bothering Katz. Not that I misquoted her, because I didn't. Rather, she thinks I am suggesting that reporters are lazy, that they just look at polls rather than going out and reporting. But this is not what I said and not what I believe.

I think reporting on election reporting is grueling work. Political reporters assigned to the campaign work hard. And what they mainly work hard at is... horse race coverage! The idea that a focus on voters is antithetical to horse race coverage misunderstands what the term "horse race coverage" means. The idea that if you cover "issues" or add "analysis," then you are not doing horse race coverage also misunderstands what the term means.

It means coverage that is mainly about: who's ahead, who's going to win, what are the dynamics of the race and how are the candidates positioning themselves for victory? Issues can be viewed through that lens. So can voters. Or a campaign debate. It's the preferred narrative strategy in the campaign press. I think most journalists know this. I know for sure that lots of readers do.

And besides, if you're freezing your butt or sweating the pounds off in Iowa reporting on the campaign, you do need to ask yourself why you and hundreds of other reporters are there in the first place. Because of Iowa's perceived importance in the horse race!

But to Katz, "horse race coverage" means "reporting on polls." Thus...

.@jim_reedy My point, taken out of context by Prof. Rosen, is MANY reporters get on the street and talk to voters. It's NOT all polling.
— DNDailyPolitics · Thu, Aug 11 2011 17:34:34

A little while later, I returned to Twitter and found that Katz was repeatedly charging me with misquoting her. I objected to that...

@DNDailyPolitics No. You were not misquoted. You were fairly paraphrased. I will put it together in a Storify and we'll let readers decide.
— jayrosen_nyu · Thu, Aug 11 2011 18:29:55

Katz was adamant...

@jayrosen_nyu Strongly disagree that I was fairly paraphrased.
— DNDailyPolitics · Thu, Aug 11 2011 18:31:25

You can decide.

Katz said, "Horserace coverage comes from polling of voters," which I paraphrased as... "horse race coverage is really about the voters."

Katz said, I've been there, "it's not all horse race coverage." Which I paraphrased as "horse race coverage isn't the dominant frame."

Was she done wrong?

@jayrosen_nyu And, of course, you do understand I was reacting to what I read as your wholesale indictment of election coverage, right?
— DNDailyPolitics · Thu, Aug 11 2011 19:04:07

Would you risk your firm's reputation by telling News Corp.'s side of the story?

Jay Rosen — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 01:42:06 GMT

The digitally savvy PR firm, Edelman, has agreed to represent News Corp., which is in crisis over big revelations from the UK that it hacked phones, paid off the cops, lied to regulators, lied to itself, and showed no interest in coming clean on the story for five years. This seemed to me a risky decision on Edelman's part. But maybe I don't understand the PR biz. Watch as I try to figure it out.

Storified by Jay Rosen · Thu, Oct 27 2011 00:56:43

July 14, 2011: The morning begins with this bit of news...

Rupert and James Murdoch to Parliament: Screw you, we're not going to testify before your committee next week. Too busy! http://t.co/RrV9yAa
— jayrosen_nyu · Thu, Jul 14 2011 06:09:59

On Tuesday, Murdoch's UK subsidiary, News International, had said: "We have been made aware of the request from the CMS select committee to interview senior executives and will cooperate." So this was a shift.

I particularly enjoyed James Murdoch's reply. Can't make it next week. But what luck, Parliament! I could squeeze you in on August 10th... does that work for you guys?

Then this comes in....

Murdoch calls in PR firm Edelman, known for its digital and social media savvy. http://jr.ly/aztz
— jayrosen_nyu · Thu, Jul 14 2011 07:16:29

One of the first reactions, from technology journalist Ed Bott, fits right into what I was thinking.

Edelman will tarnish own brand RT @jayrosen_nyu Murdoch calls in PR firm Edelman, known for digital & social media savvy. http://jr.ly/aztz
— edbott · Thu, Jul 14 2011 07:20:58

Followed by this from Tim Carmody, who writes (well) about technology and culture....

They rep Microsoft, e.g. RT @jayrosen_nyu: Murdoch calls in PR firm Edelman, known for its digital and social media savvy. http://jr.ly/aztz
— tcarmody · Thu, Jul 14 2011 07:21:56

Tim and I then have a conversation about how Edelman decided to take on the News Corp. assignment and the risks therein.

The questions that interest me are: How does Edelman decide if the risks to its reputation are manageable? Here it is, representing a company with demonstrable difficulties in coming to terms with unconscionable things it has done and speaking truthfully in public about its behavior. I can understand Edelman thinking, "We can help you manage this crisis. We can help you tell your side of the story." They're pros. They're good at this. I get all that.

But how could Edelman have any confidence that News Corp would level with Edelman? As far as I could tell, there was nothing in the history of the phone hacking scandal up to now to suggest that the Murdoch forces were capable of that.

I'd love to know what the deliberations were like within Edelman, @tcarmody. Don't you have to think your client will be straight with you?
— jayrosen_nyu · Thu, Jul 14 2011 07:31:02

@jayrosen_nyu I'd love to know that, too. I know they're very good at what they do.
— tcarmody · Thu, Jul 14 2011 07:32:16

@tcarmody It's been made clear that News Corp. is incapable of being honest with itself. But they're gonna be straight with @Edelman_Trust?
— jayrosen_nyu · Thu, Jul 14 2011 07:39:56

@jayrosen_nyu Well, PR's different from lawyering. You have to have a strategy, but you're mostly finessing people & putting out fires.
— tcarmody · Thu, Jul 14 2011 07:41:01

@jayrosen_nyu I think they'll get advance straight news of decisions News Corp is making, but probably not the sordid reasons behind them.
— tcarmody · Thu, Jul 14 2011 07:41:55

@tcarmody I guess I don't understand the PR business, then. How do you estimate the risk of working for a company with a culture of lying?
— jayrosen_nyu · Thu, Jul 14 2011 07:52:15

Then we have our first communique from a public relations professional, Ann Marie van den Hurk...

@jayrosen_nyu He should have had a crisis plan in place... He's swimming up stream without a paddle now.
— amvandenhurk · Thu, Jul 14 2011 07:22:38

Good point! But other than Ann Marie, I hear nothing from the PR pros. Several hundred of them follow me on Twitter, but over the years I have noticed that while they preach the virtues of "engagement" most are reluctant to comment on any controversy that involves their profession.

But maybe if we shine a light on this fact we can draw them out a bit. Let's give it a shot....

As usual, all the PR people who follow me have nothing to say re: our discussion today of @Edelman_Trust's decision to work for News Corp.
— jayrosen_nyu · Thu, Jul 14 2011 08:21:27

We have a winner! Peter Axtman is a PR guy...

Just another lesson in realism from a member of the working press

Jay Rosen — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 01:55:29 GMT

Highlighted here is an example of a certain sort of exchange I have over and over with journalists. They say to me (in so many words) "That's nice, Jay, but..." Or, "You may be right in some abstract sense, but..." Or, "Wow: I see you feel strongly about this, but..." and what follows the "but " is a little lesson in realism. How things really work. The limits of what can be done. Let's watch...

Storified by Jay Rosen · Thu, Oct 27 2011 01:04:44

The New York Times reports that Standard & Poor's has warned that Greece would be judged (by it) to be in default if a plan proposed by France to restructure its debt went through. Standard & Poor's also said it was cutting its rating on Greek debt from B to CCC.

I agree that's news. But to quote ProPublica's Jesse Eisinger: "As everyone knows by now, the credit ratings agencies played an enormous role in creating the conditions that led to the financial crisis. Their willingness to slap Triple A ratings on all manner of Wall Street- engineered mortgage rot was enormously lucrative for the raters but a disaster for the global economy."

Everyone knows it by now, but somehow the financial press keeps reporting on these firms as if they never failed at the very thing they are supposed to do, as if the corrupt system they were enmeshed in was never exposed, as if nothing happened that might cause an intelligent reader to ask: why is the financial system still listening to these guys? That's what the Times did today, so I expressed myself thusly on Twitter....

I am disgusted that the Times doesn't even try to explain how S & P has any weight after its debacle during the meltdown http://t.co/jEJOO8L
— jayrosen_nyu · Mon, Jul 04 2011 09:52:56

I soon got a reply from David Joachim, Weekend Washington editor for the New York Times. (And kudos to him for engaging because we do appreciate that...)

@jayrosen_nyu U may rightly think traders + investors *shouldn't* be guided by S&P anymore, but fact is they still are. So moves r notable
— davidjoachim · Mon, Jul 04 2011 09:56:59

What's notable to me about this response is that it misses the point I was making in order to deliver its payload in realism. Joachim is saying to me, "I understand your outrage that the system still relies on S & P, but the fact is that the system does. We are simply reporting that, so what's your beef?"

But I had already said what my beef was: That the Times didn't even bother to explain how it was that S & P still has this influence. The reporter just shrugs and accepts it. But why? Is that the only newswriting alternative? So I repeat my point:

@davidjoachim Thanks for the savvy read. I said it's disgusting that the Times doesn't note this, or think it worth explaining to readers.
— jayrosen_nyu · Mon, Jul 04 2011 09:59:04

Now it's time for a second lesson in realism. This one's about what can realistically be expected of the New York Times. I am said to have excessive expectations that cannot be met.

@jayrosen_nyu So every story that refers to S&P should explain why its influence *hasn't* changed despite its foul-ups? Yes, always worth...
— davidjoachim · Mon, Jul 04 2011 10:05:04

@jayrosen_nyu ...reminding readers why S&P matters in this context. But relitigating in every instance seems excessive.
— davidjoachim · Mon, Jul 04 2011 10:08:14

So now we're debating whether "in every instance" the entire saga of these corrupt and incompetent ratings agencies should be "relitigated" just so the Times can report a new development in the Greek debt saga. Sigh. I try again:

@davidjoachim I hear you. I'm saying that to report on S & P as if none of this ever happened is a bankrupt pattern. Fixing it may be hard.
— jayrosen_nyu · Mon, Jul 04 2011 10:14:04

Or maybe not that hard. Ever heard of linking? Number of links in the Times story on the Standard & Poors warning: zero. Number of links it would take to explain how it is that Standard & Poors retains its influence despite its "enormous role in creating the conditions that led to the financial crisis..." One.

A few hours later, help arrives. It's Dean Starkman, formerly a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, now a full time critic of the financial press for Columbia Journalism Review's The Audit, which has been very attentive to the ongoing scandal that the ratings agencies are.

@jayrosen_nyu S&P once relied on subscriptions, a journalism model, and had no weight. http://t.co/lx7zyvF Now, a regulatory Frankenstein,
— deanstarkman · Mon, Jul 04 2011 14:36:16

Click Starkman's link and this is what you find:

Does it rankle you that when S&P or Moody"s issues a credit warning on, say, Japanese debt, not to mention the credit profile of the United States, it still matters?

It does me. It especially frosts my flakes because--despite the fact they are embedded in the financial system by their official status as Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations--when their conflicted ratings turn out to be bogus, they seek refuge behind the First Amendment. They fend off fraud claims by claiming they were just expressing an opinion. (Hey, man, it's just my 'pinion.) And it works!

Unlike journalists, however, the rating agency is paid by the institution whose work it is covering. Imagine that model at a newspaper:

LOCAL COLUMNIST: "Mayor, you"re doing a great job--AAA!"

MAYOR: "Thanks!" (hands over bag of cash).

All I'm asking for is a little Starkman when the Times has to report on credit agencies that have failed utterly in the very thing they are supposed to do but yet are still asked to do it. The situation is surreal. Expecting it to be noted is to me a realistic demand to make on our press.