I'm almost embarrassed to be a Canadian and see this kind of article come out in a Canadian publication. Macleans has published an article called The Internet Sucks and I must say that it seems like a desperate plea to get eyes balls and people talking about it, more than anything that is accurately describing the current state of the Internet. I heard about this a while ago but refused to buy the magazine and get sucked into the hype that Macleans was trying to generate by running the article. I finally read the article online, and now I can comment.
I'm not going to do a point by point rebuttal, but did want to point out a few things. Firstly, I found their article on the Internet....does that mean that the article and their publication sucks? If it does...it isn't because of the Internet. I mean, why post the article on the Internet if you think the web is useless? Secondly, isn't this type of argumentative perspective one we've already seen....something like...ten years ago?? I remember these types of discussions back in 1996 when people equated the internet to CB radio, nothing more than a fad or an outlet for pornography hungry consumers. It is sad to see that the author of the article can't see that in ten years time the Internet has become so much more than that. Yes it has limitations and various shortcomings but it has truly revolutionized the way we work, interact with people, consume content and express ourselves. The internet remember isn't just web pages, it is blogging, instant messaging, emails, voice over IP (VoiP) telephone service, video streaming, discussion groups, mapping. Does it all suck? Yes, there are the dark elements of the web, like pornography, gambling, lies, theft and terrorism, but doesn't that exist outside the Internet as well? You can find pornography in print and video as well...does that those mediums suck? No...it means those elements of the medium might suck, but come on, the Internet is so much more than that.
I think that much of the article stems from a type of sour grapes syndrome as well. For example, when talking about blogs and blogger we read
Google News, Craigslist and the world army of bloggers have devalued journalism just as surely as Napster poisoned the market for recorded music. According to the PEW Internet and American Life Project, there are now more than 12 million bloggers in the United States alone, and more than a third of them consider what they do a form of journalism, even though little or no reporting is involved. There are certainly some interesting and insightful blogs, on a wide range of topics. But, in general, the more substantive the subject matter, the less reliable the commentary is.
Hmmm...so now we've devalued journalism? I'd say that Steve Maich, author of the article, is doing that all by himself. Blogging hasn't devalued journalism anymore that Napster devalued music. What it does is shift the power from the mega-corporations to the people and sets a fair market value for content.
To me the article is very much like what you'd call a Comment Troll in the blogging world. Someone who just wants to get noticed so they post an inflammatory comment on your blog. That is what this article from Macleans is I think. I'd be interested in knowing what Macleans readership growth has been like over the past ten years? What about revenue based on advertising? Growing or shrinking?
Finally, it'll be interesting to see who's around longer, the Internet or Macleans magazine. My bet would be on the internet...what do you think?
Recent Comments