The Indefatigable Steve Rosenbaum
I bit off more than I could chew when I zinged Steve Rosenbaum–here's a guy who'll keep coming back at you, Lance Armstrong–like, in the comments section. Doesn't matter if people compare his résumé to that of a pornographer, turn down his offers to hire them, or suggest he's related to Donald Rumsfeld. The Magnify.net CEO will pick himself up, dust himself off, and sigh: "Wow, ok it’s a ‘credit’ throwdown." He'll then list the TV shows he's worked on, the documentaries he's produced, and the various formats of videotape he's familiar with.
Clearly this is a man whose opinions on "jouranalism" aren't to be taken lightly.
But who's the man behind that résumé?
For one thing, he blogs on Huffington Post. Highlights from this career include punditry ("I think there is every reason to believe John McCain won't be the nominee. Ok, let me say that again. McCain will not be the Republican candidate in November"), cutting-edge constitutional law advocacy ("President Obama... I have to ask, why isn't Bernie Madoff behind bars?"), and serving as a sort of Margaret Mead for "Digital Natives" (he defines them as people who've "created an economic safety net that is driven in part by creating awareness of their work through personal branding and a relentless ability to keep their name and their work front and center among their 'Tweeps' (that's the Twitter version of 'Peeps')").
Rosenbaum is a digital pioneer. How else to explain the fact that his Wikipedia page, for 18 beautiful months, described him just the way you'd imagine he'd like to be described ("As the Founding Partner of Magnify Media, Steven Rosenbaum has developed a worldwide reputation as a storyteller with a passion for characters and an eye for unusual action. His award winning television, internet and film projects cover the range from reality based documentary and hard news coverage to narrative fiction."). Then some luddite went in and got all "neutral POV" on his entry.
Steve, man, all kidding aside, I thank you for answering the question I posed in the comments section. You wrote:
1). No one is making money on Curation alone.
2). There’s nothing that even remotely resembles a business model around content yet.
OK, fine. But I'm still wondering why you think "curation" is a way forward for journalism when we're already doing a fine job losing money the old-fashioned way. If curation, or link journalism, or whatever term is in vogue at the moment has any chance of making money, I say go after it like grim death. But all I see now is a phrase that gives publishers cover when they embark on the umpteenth round of cost-cutting occasioned by their acquisitions. See you in the comments.