There is something of the Web 2.0 enabled "new media" revolution in the underlying philosophy of the Alinement Network. After all, merely to attempt to create an online magazine site indicates that (I at least think) there is a gap left by the mainstream business, management and technology publications.
The nature of that gap comes down to who is in control of the distribution channels. In newspapers and magazines the business model is to attract advertisers who pay for the privelege of getting their message in front of their key market. So the model requires publishers to do something along these lines:

+ Find a niche market that is not already serviced
+ Gather some information/ content relevant to them
+ Create a product that is appealing
+ Develop a distribution channel
+ Get vendors and consultants to pay for advertising    space (sometime disguised as content)

While I have no problem with the model above or the profit motive that is at its heart, I can see that there are some unpleasant and most likely unintended consequences of the model.

Firstly, it is about dividing up the market, categorizing readers into "types" and then feeding them information (probably just content actually - see the distinction) only relevant to that type. The result of these targetted publications is that they create siloed-thinking at the industry level, where business and technology roles are separated; managers and specialists isolated. Which all goes to make running the "whole" that much more difficult to keep together.
Secondly, the content is written by third-parties who at best had some past experiences in the industry they are writing about. Often the authors are generalists. They may be journalists or simply people who can write well, and their whole experience of the industry (or niche) they are writing about is based upon the interactions they have with the very vendors and consultants who have a barrow to push.
Finally, when the viability of the model is based upon the advertising revenue it is simply impossible to "tell it like it is" even if the writers wanted to do so. The publishers and/or editors are too scared to rock the financial boat because they realize their advertisers will not appreciate having their ads juxtaposed by unfriendly articles discussing implementation problems.
The result of the above three points (and there may be more you can think off) is that we get an extremely narrow and stilted viewpoint from our industry press. There are taboo topics, there are "holy-cows" that are exempt from any critisism and to compensate there are is an abundance of industry jargon and buzz-words that have more to do with marketing hype than any real advances in management thinking. Sometimes the profit motive can have a corrupting effect on things.
Having said all that I would love to get some return from the effort it has taken, and will continue to take, to establish the Alinement Network. Advertising is of course one of the first things that comes to mind as a revenue stream and so there is an ethical trap that is very easy to fall into. At this stage I am hopeful that a balance can be struck and in the end it is a tension between editorial integrity and business outcomes.
The web presents online publications with a few opportunities to tackle this ethical challenge. In summary, and worthy of more discussion (with you the reader) I can see the following opportunities to escape the trap that the profit motive sets for all publishers:

So there is some hope of a new form of media that comes with the Web 2.0 model which does not destroy financial incentive but rather adapts it so that the business model is targetting the readers (users) rather than the
It is an important power-shift which make possible new business models, creates new opportunities and calls for different skillsets - maybe making knowledge and experience a valuable commodity once again.
It would be good to hear your thoughts on this subject .....