Telecom Trends

I think the cover story of this week's Maclean's magazine, with an attention grabbing headline like "The Internet Sucks", is good reading. Before you start thinking that Maclean's must be one of those typical old-economy, main stream media dinosaurs, remember that Maclean's is part of Rogers Publishing, owned by the same folks who bring you, ummm..., the internet on cable.

The magazine and author have been vilified in many blogs for taking a contrarian view. Of course, the majority of people who blog have a somewhat religious fervour toward all that is e-nabled or i-nterconnected.

I wanted to wait until I actually read the story by Steve Maich before commenting on it. Many bloggers couldn't be bothered to go to the source material, because that would have meant paying for the print edition. [It is now available on-line.]

One of my first observations is that the inflamatory nature of the promotional headline ("The Internet Sucks") and the Maclean's press release succeeded in: a) attracting lots of attention; and, b) proving some of the positions advanced by the author.

A point from the article:

In a 2001 paper, Cass Sunstein, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, described the "echo chamber" effect of blogs and message boards. Rather than fostering debate, moderation and common understanding, he argued, these sites have contributed to the polarization of our political culture. People gravitate toward sites that reflect their established point of view, and once comfortably ensconced in their political echo chamber, the participants take turns preaching to the assembled choir, reinforcing each other's ideas and biases, and denouncing anyone who might disagree.

Rather than promoting open discussion and greater understanding, the Net has fed the cynical perception that every form of traditional authority is based on lies and corruption. The much-hyped free market of ideas is a world in which the loudest and most outrageous assertion dominates the discussion. Everybody believes they are being oppressed by those opposed to them. The truth is what you already think it is, and nobody can be trusted.

Blogs citing blogs. Rankings based on counting links to a blog. Can we value user rankings such as Digg? Is it sufficient for news to be popular? Are we sacrificing accuracy and quality of the written word?

Articles attract a good ranking because of an alignment of a story with what people want to hear or hear about. In a Digg-ranked world, ice cream shops might only carry 3 or 4 flavours. Those 3-4 flavours may not include vanilla or chocolate, because in a Digg-ranked world, traditional is often evil - and we seem to ignore the unwashed masses. Allow me to put in a good word for Muskoka Maple Moosetracks.

Hyperbolic headline aside, the Maclean's cover story is worthwhile reading, and fodder for discussion over the weekend. What are the greatest achievements delivered by the internet? Not just the web and new media. I'd like to hear your views.

But read the whole article first. Maybe even pay for the magazine, even if that means supporting MSM's tired old business model.

Author Steve Maich defends his honour at Mark Evans's blog. Read the pieces by Steve & Mark and be sure to look at the comments as well. It seems to me that if blogs on the Internet provide a Speaker's Corner, the audience seems quick to throw eggs at speakers that don't conform with a non-conformist agenda.

Technorati Tags:
Macleans, internet