After being called out on a post I made about the Maclean's story, The Internet Sucks, I promised to read the story and invited its author, Steve Maich, to provide a guest post. In the spirit of conversation (Shel Israel would love that concept!), here's my take on the Maclean's story and Steve's response. (Note: Steve and I worked together at the National Post for several years. He's not only a good guy and fine writer but a good goaltender as well.)

Here's my post:

So, I bought a copy of Maclean's this morning, and read the cover story - The Internet Sucks. In fact, I read it twice just to make sure I digested the overall thesis. All I can say is that its author, Steve Maich, and I will have to agree to disagree. To me, the article is far too unbalanced - focusing on the bad aspects of the Internet such as pornography, content pirates, academic plagarists, fraud artists and sexual predators. There's no discussion about how the Internet has made the world a much smaller place, and how it's fundamentally changing how we live, work and play.

I'll admit the Web is far from perfect and it's certainly not the utopia that people envisioned. But it's a lot more than just a breeding group for criminals. It may simply come down to philosophical differences. I see the Web glass as half-full with enormous upside; Maich sees it as half-empty. For example, he dismisses Google's purchase of YouTube as "the latest step in our long descent into cyber-madness" without taking into consideration the acquisition could position Google as one of the leading players in the online video distribution business. He laments the fact newsrooms around the world are shrinking because sites such as Google News and Yahoo! News are taking readers and advertisers away. However, Maich fails to consider the idea the Web is forcing everyone to change how they do business. If the Web is becoming the way to consume news, perhaps newspapers needs to stop publishing news, and focus on producing analytical stores that go beyond the news if they want to survive and thrive.

To be frank, I think the story - while thought-provoking - is not objective enough and fails to provide any pro-Internet voices.. I'm not suggesting it's without merit because it does put the spotlight on some very troubling issues. And to be sure, it's healthy to have pragmatic, rational discussions about the Web rather than being part of the hype machine. If, at the end of the day, the Maclean's story forces people to discuss the Web's direction and impact, that can only be a positive. But it doesn't mean I agree with its tone, slant or thesis.

And here's Steve's take on the story:
Yes, yes, unbalanced. I hear that a lot. I plead guilty.
The story is an argument, a point of view based on facts, and hopefully one that people will find thought-provoking.
In writing this article I was taking on a fairly established bit of conventional wisdom – specifically that the Internet is a profoundly beneficial advance for society. You hear that all the time. There are entire magazines like Wired, and thousands of blogs built around that very premise: information technology is wonderful, all hail the Web. I hardly think the world needs me to go through the basics of why people like the Internet, just to satisfy some shallow nod to journalistic balance.
You and I both know the difference between a news story and an opinion piece – and so do our readers.
It isn’t my job to be “balanced”, it’s my job to tell you what I think and why I think it.
But this is devolving into a boring debate about the proper role of a magazine writer, rather than a discussion on whether or not the Internet Sucks.

A side note – this wasn’t a huge part of my story, but let’s address Google/You Tube for a second.
The success of the transaction hinges on a series of assumptions that I consider faulty. These include: the assumption that You Tube will remain an attractive means of sharing video once advertising is integrated into it; the assumption that major entertainment companies will be willing to provide their content to Google/You Tube on commercial terms that allow the latter to make money; and the dual assumptions that a) the Web is indeed going to become the dominant medium for distributing video, and b) that You Tube will be the dominant platform. (Are you still using the same search engine you did in 1996?)

There’s no need to re-hash the main elements of the article here, since it’s now available online, but the key points are these:
Crime: Rampant.
Destruction of intellectual property rights: epidemic.
Elevation of the level of political discourse: I think not.
The economic model – A trillion dollars later and still largely unproven.

But there is one point on which we can agree. You say the Web has huge upside. It does indeed.
But for the past 15 years the debate about the Internet has been dominated by discussions about the POTENTIAL of the Web, rather than the REALITY of the Web as we know it today. And the only way the potential will ever be realized is if we talk honestly and critically about the reality.

I made a major mistake yesterday. I wrote a post about an article in Maclean's magazine called "The Internet Sucks" that I didn't read. Instead, I based my post on the views of someone else - Shane Schick - who had read it. Not surprisingly, the story's author, Steve Maich, who I worked with at the National Post, called me on it. Guilty as charged. So, I'm going to do something I've never done before: buy a copy of Maclean's. Then, I'm going to write another post based on my own thoughts. I've also invited Steve to write a guest post about his thinking.
Update: I still haven't found the Maclean's story online but there is a press release with this intro: "After 15 years and a trillion dollars of investment, just about everything we've been told about the Internet and the information age has come up short. Instead of the promised enlightened utopia built on mutual understanding, we have constructed a virtual Wild West where the masses indulge their darkest vices, pirates of all kinds troll for victims, and the rest of us have come to accept that cyberspace isn't the kind of place you'd want to raise your kids."

Twenty months after raising $5-million of venture capital and several strategic mistakes later, Odeo's founder has decided to buy back the company from investors, and rename itself Obvious Corp. What's particularly interesting about Odeo's move is whether this is just the beginning of a trend in which Web 2.0 entrepreneurs will take control of their companies again after interest from investors disappears due to a lack of progress. The silver lining within the Web 2.0 environment is start-ups can be fairly low-cost operations if you eliminate the frills (marketing, traveling, major application upgrades, etc.). This makes it easier for a start-up to survive when its VCs bail on the idea - rather than having to shut down. Odeo's founder, Evan Williams, obviously believes there is lots of potential in the podcasting market and the company's prospects can improve with some strategic tweaks. Don't be surprised to more entrepreneurs refuse to walk away from their creations even when "the money" disappears. The unwillingness to concede defeat is another thing that separates today's Web landscape from the dot-com days when many companies had little choice but to close their doors when the investors checked out. For more, check out GigaOm and Ben Metcalfe.