I had plenty of arguments and endless discussions about this topic -- whereas a website has a model of aggregating pieces of news specific to a topic (let's say technology), then wraping them up and making available to the online world. Plus that most often than not it makes money out of it (that is the Acheele's heel). I ran into various arguments against them - from stealing content or IP property to childish excuses regarding the fairness of it.

Now, under most circumstances, this is simply an indication that people argumenting either don't get it or are jealous on others who actually figure out a way to make a buck or two. Over at Techdirt there is an old thread explaining in detail why this (aggregation) is a good thing for both the individual content providers and for the online media landscape per se -- I also like Mike's "one shouldn't be jealous if other people figured out a business model and we didn't".

I would just add that those aggregators (strategically Umair calls them reconstructors) are simply new distribution channels that would actually help the content writers to be easier found and hence get more publicity. Once you decided to make your content available online the inability of not being able to monetize individually what you write should not reflect on others who figured it out. As long as the credit is given where is due, of course. The thives are not really worth going after anyways as there a slight chance the market (i.e. readers) would validate them.