Comments on: Why “Link Journalism” Won’t Save Your Ass

By: Link journalism « Blah Blah Blog: News and other journalistic musings by Kristen

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:23:14 +0000

[...] Why “Link Journalism” Won’t Save Your Ass [...]

By: The journalist as curator, revisited: Curating your own content « Korr Values

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:43:25 +0000

[...] news organizations realize the value of being a trusted filter for readers. (Though there are definitely detractors.) And while more news orgs still need to get comfortable aggregating content produced elsewhere, I [...]

By: david

david — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 23:31:53 +0000

"No one is making money on Curation alone."

I disagree. Look at Druge and HuffPo.

By: Steve Rosenbaum

Steve Rosenbaum — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:59:44 +0000

Seriously, you're going to judge my work based on generalizing about all people who work in TV? I could make judgments about your handle - since Woodstein doesn't tell me who you are, and I'm signing my posts.

But instead, why not Google me and read my clips:

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9A02E4D9153EF935A3575AC0A9649C8B63

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Rosenbaum

Come on - I'm staying here because I want to have a real conversation about Journalism, Curation, and how they fit together - not to be called names by folks who can't take the time to learn about who is in this thread. I read every reporter who commented here - at least those who used their real names.

The answer to the question is: 1). No one is making money on Curation alone.

and

2). There's nothing that even remotely resembles a business model around content yet. That, I agree, is a serious problem. But blaming the technology and the practice isn't going to change that. The AP's stance, if it had a mechanism, would have at least given us something to talk about.

By: Woodstein

Woodstein — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:58:46 +0000

I think Steve's non-answer neatly answers the question, which is, No, nobody's making a dime off of "curating" content. But looking at Steve's resume answers another question: He's a TV guy. Television "news," with some exceptions, is not the same type of journalism (Journalism) practiced and cherished by the people left at City Paper and other dwindling newsrooms. But the TV model -- quick, bright, colorful, shallow -- is closer to what's happening online in blogs, Tweets, etc. That's why Steve's so psyched. I weep for the future.

By: churchclothes

churchclothes — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:18:56 +0000

Ugh. Let's try to avoid devolving into petty insults and name-calling.

Steve, once again, you're sidestepping the actual question. Nobody is asking your opinion regarding the historic profitability of news organizations (newspapers, historically at least, were immensely profitable).Rather, the question was 'can you name a single aggregation or “curation” site that’s making a profit?'

Can you? The question still stands.

By: Angry Al Gonzales

Angry Al Gonzales — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:13:56 +0000

"Steve" not only displays poor mechanics in his writing, he also fails to answer "the question". He must be related to that idiot Don Rumsfeld. The only part of the newspaper industry with increasing profits is the Spanish language segment. One reason is that their journalists write about topics that affect the lives of regular people. This is in direct contrast to the Post, where the self-proclaimed "elites" care only about issues that affect their fellow "elites", and really, every single Post writer wants to write books, not journalism. Hence, poor journalism and misguided editors are leading to the death of the Post.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:28:24 +0000

Me, your editor? Judging by the amount of errors in your copy, I don't think I want to make that kind of time commitment. I need a work/life balance, as they say. I can't put in the 80 to 100 hours per week that would be needed to be your spell checker.

By: steve

steve — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 14:18:55 +0000

The "Question" am I aware of any company that relies on "Curation" that is profitable. It's a fair question. Today, I'm not aware of any news organization that is profitable. Historically, Newspapers were privately held and often their economics where murky. Television news was, historically, a public service component. It's just in recent history that private equity groups and public markets have looked to news as a 'business', and television news, with the advent of magazine format programs, became low cost profit centers. There is a legitimate open question about how content gets paid for. But that is not limited to jouranalism. While it is easy to say that some mix of advertising and subscription is the answer, the various posters here want to know when that gets sorted out - if ever. I think that its easier to answer that question outside of news, which niche content around topics (cooking, skiiing, mountain climbing, etc) has immediate economic ties to ecommece and CPA advertising. (ps: Dave McKenna- Was "Butt" a typo or a pun, I wasn't sure).

By: steve

steve — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:18:20 +0000

Hey Dave - Can I hire you as an editor? That's a great business idea! Love that I could pay per-post to have someone 'edit' me, fresh pair of eyes, feedback, perspective. Sign me up.

By: the scowl » Blog Archive » link in brief: 8 april 2009

the scowl » Blog Archive » link in brief: 8 april 2009 — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:02:59 +0000

[...] Andrew Beaujon on link-based journalism. [via Jessica [...]

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 05:33:54 +0000

Your resume sounds impressive, Rosenbaum. That makes your unceasing crimes against the English language all the more inexcusable.

I'd go on, but Jule and McKenna already demolished you much better than I ever could.

Take Jule's advice! Hire an editor to go over your stuff, ASAP!

By: Angry Al Gonzales

Angry Al Gonzales — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:17:49 +0000

Once the newspapers die, what links will the linkers use? Linking to each other? Meanwhile, the corrupt politicians rule.

By: Jule Banville

Jule Banville — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:25:37 +0000

When talented journalists, or Journalists, are tasked with filtering, curation, and creating clicks for other people's content, what suffers is the time they used to have to use their real talents: reporting, writing, "creating," and, just as important, editing. Want to know what I will pay for when the trucks and the printing presses go to pasture? It's editors. Because every blogger needs one, including Mr. Rosenbaum. The "filtering" that good editors do should be making raw writing and aggressive reporting better, more reliable, and more accessible to readers. Andrew is right: Link journalism may have its place and all of us here do it, but it won't bring my company out of $40 million debt, no matter how much my company is, as my CEO put it, "in love with" the concept. Further, instead of reading and commenting on the well-reported, well-edited, well-photographed stories their papers are still writing, despite the cutbacks, my company's higher-ups choose instead to read and send around links of Mr. Rosenbaum's work, who still won't answer the question.

By: Dave McKenna

Dave McKenna — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:08:00 +0000

Steve Rosenbaum:
"I’ve worked in 8 videotape formats if you count VHS, Hi8, 3/4″ Beta, Betacam, mini-DV, HDV, and now MPEG-4."

so have most pornographers, steve! and, come to think of it, a lot of them ARE making a profit on the 'net. so maybe YOU are onto something here, steve!

butt seriously: ANSWER THE QUESTION!