Finders Keepers: News in an Aggregated Time
Michael Woolf’s interview on CNBC made him look like an arrogant jerk. First of all he is a Vanity Fair columnist and creator of Newser.com, so I tend to believe he isn’t exactly a hard-hitting journalist. Woolf was determined to make himself look like a villain from the onset of the interview when he said, “I’m trying to put newspapers out of business.”
Unfortunately, for Woolf I don’t think his Web site will be able to accomplish this task. According to an article by PoynterOnline by Larry D. Larsen called “Zero Second News,” News aggregates don’t create or break their own news and therefore are not a threat to existing news sites…[they can] greatly increase the traffic you already have.”
Woolf also claims that it would not matter if The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times stopped producing original material. But then from who would Newser.com aggregate? There can never be a world where no one creates original stories, because that would be the end of the news industry.
Woolf’s Web site Newser.com is an aggregate news site, which reduces full-length articles to 65 to 140 words. He claims that nothing is lost by the reduction, but I beg to differ. What is the point of going school to study other writers, if not to learn and develop technique? Yes, I think for less newsworthy stories an aggregate site is beneficial to wade through the enormous amount of information. Newser.com should be used as a starting point in the hunt for news. It is clear when comparing the WSJ‘s free summary of the iPad and Newser’s, that the quality of information given on Woolf’s Web site is very basic.
The vast majority of the interview made me upset, and question why I am even in graduate school if an aggregated world is inevitable. However, Woolf was unable to give clear answers as to how technology would change the hard work needed for “actual” reporting. The one point I think Woolf made well was that aggregate sites facilitate the authentication process of news from the blog world.
