Gordonofhaddam’s Comments

• Apr 10th, 2011 @ 5:49am

  Re: Aggregators vs. journalists

  on Journalists Are Aggregators Too (And That's A Good Thing)
  I started my career at Reader's Digest, a pioneering "aggregator." We reserved the term journalist for the writers and columnists. We were just editors. We selected stories from all over the place that we found fascinating or funny or inspirational. Stuff we thought anyone could identify with. It was a bit like a managed mutual fund, a lineup of what you think are the best stocks to spread the risk and reap some gain. For a "news" aggregator the value you add is the taste and skill you bring to the selection process. If you're good at it, you can charge money. Otherwise you're going to need some sponsors.
• Apr 10th, 2011 @ 5:12am

  Re: Aggregators vs. journalists

  on Journalists Are Aggregators Too (And That's A Good Thing)
  Consider Reader's Digest. Arguably the mother of all aggregators. For about 40 years RD was the world's most successful publishing enterprise. The recipe there was simple, the cooking took skill. RD paid the originating publishers but also endeavored to have the rights owner split the take with the author. Some publishers actually did. My father, Bill Hard, was one of the cooks, masterful at trimming fat and boiling things down. Nothing New Under the Sun was his motto, and usual response to any breathless announcement of a Next Big Thing. Sic transit.