Comments on: Worrying about aggregators A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: robertwaldmann Thu, 19 May 2011 23:38:25 +0000 I absolutely totally agree with this post. There is a huge amount of information in the public domain — much more than any human being can know. Looking up this information serves exactly the same social function as shoe leather reporting.

I especially wish I wrote the last line about the press conference.

Unfortunately much print journalism lives in the past century (mid to late 20th not 19th really kids it used to be that bad). It is as if all newspapers need a correspondent at a press conference to find out what was said. And they have these poor kids travel around the country with candidates when one pool reporter could report if the candidate flashed the audience during his stump speech or whatever the news they expect to obtain is supposed to be.

I have the impression that journalists who have no respect for aggregating are often embarrassed in debates with, say, bloggers, as the bloggers can point to facts in the public record which show that the anti-aggregation journalists are wrong. I mean they would be embarrassed if they didn’t ignore the debate. One example, managing editor of Time who said that Americans want to look forward when most respondents in a poll said the opposite
or the famous case of Joe Klein who didn’t have the time or the expertise to read a bill and relied on an anonymous source to say what was in it (but it’s OK because he ran it past a Democrat). General rule is don’t mess with Glenn, but, the point is Greenwald isn’t a reporter but, when he debates with reporters, he’s the one who knows the facts.

By: Digidave Thu, 19 May 2011 18:15:11 +0000 How much do you want to bet their favorite blogger is Romenesko, a classic aggregator (and a great one at that).

By: FifthDecade Thu, 19 May 2011 13:47:04 +0000 In many ways aggregation has already hit mainstream journalism.

So many times news stories are no more than rejigged press releases, and in the recent run up to the UK Referendum on Electoral Reform, the main UK TV News gatherer, the BBC, reported on what the No and Yes campaigns said, but didn’t analyse any of it. In this way they propagated the lies and failed to ask any difficult questions. Their idea of balance was to give equal time to what each side were saying, and hardly any to what the Referendum was all about in case their impartiality was impuned.

In the written Press, an increasing share of investigative journalism seems to be getting on a company’s mailing list to receive PR blurb, or joining a creative writing group to invent more lies to print – or generating stories through illegal stings or phone hacking.

By: CDN_Rebel Wed, 18 May 2011 19:05:04 +0000 Maybe I’m not understanding properly, but Mr. Salmon is advocating that we should have fewer direct sources to stories and all other resources should be directed at Op/Ed on the direct story? I thought that the reduction of media (ie that only 3 or 4 major conglomerates controlling all news source material) was a terrible thing that led to the corruption of the media and a general mistrust of the media…

While I love reading colour on topics (hey, I’m reading this aren’t I) it’s not more important than the actual news event. Discussion is important, but having the sources leads to meaningful discussion, not blathering about topics with little facts in the mix a la Fox.

By: GRRR Wed, 18 May 2011 18:20:08 +0000 I have to wholeheartedly agree: old media is mostly good at finding the news and reporting it, but generally not so good at analysing and applying a wider lens to any given story. Business reporting is probably the worst. On a daily basis, false causality is being pushed out as fact, requiring debunking by others.

By: KenG_CA Wed, 18 May 2011 16:22:08 +0000 Every new fad spawns a bubble as the market evolves, and then there is consolidation. So aggregators will grow for a while, and then most will go out of business or merge with others, and then most of the people working for them will move on to other jobs. It’s not anything to worry about. The more aggregators that remain, the more demand there will be for original content (unless the aggregators are all owned by Fox, in which case all the “content” will be circular links originated by talking points).

Hopefully, that inevitable consolidation will filter out conversations like the quoted one which inspired this column.