Sure, and I've seen some of those comments. I think we ought to distinguish between aggregators that take in that content for indexing purposes and then make snippets available and aggregators who take content and then simply repost, unchanged by and large, that same content.
I don't think those who take those works for indexing purposes, for search purposes, but don't make available the full text and send the person who's searching for this material back to the originating source are violating copyright. Indeed, I think it's a good thing because it increases the exposure of the original reportage.
If someone aggregates content and then simply takes that same content and reposts it unchanged, that will unquestionably raise issues. I know that there's a fine line with some sources when the perception is that they take that content, rewrite it a bit, and then make it available.
I'd come back again to the distinction between the protection of ideas and expression. I don't think we would want to see an environment or a law that protected both expression and ideas and said that the copyright protection covers your ideas as well, so that if one news organization published an exclusive, all others would be prohibited from covering that same story because somehow they had that broad-based protection.