I think there were more inaccuracies than normal. Again, I'm almost always the person arguing the other side of this debate. Here are a few of the things I had trouble with:

Implication that ales are darker.

Description of Rare Vos as lacking the sublety of Belgium (sic) ales (it's not his adjective "Belgium" but the comparison of Rare Vos to _all_ Belgian ales.

The mischaracterization of Old Nick as a stout.

Real beer only has four ingredients.

Ales are "how beer was made for millennia--natural yeasts in the air attacked the blend of water, hops and malted barley and started the fermentation process." I guess that's true, but maybe a mention of spontaneous fermentation today would have been interesting.

"These days there's an awful lot of very mediocre micro-brew beer, with wacky labels and cute names. But far too many of them taste downright nasty." While true enough (Bad Frog anyone), his list makes me think that any stout or porter would be "nasty" since he doesn't bother with any examples of those styles. Lambics and plambics and anything sour would probably be in that category too. Anyway, if this article is good for artisinal brewers, why mention this at all when the truly "nasty" beers are probably infected or simply poorly made brewpub/micro beers and not that prevalent. There are hundreds of good examples of micros and brewpub beers. Why not focus on those. It's never been easier to find good beer in the U.S., but this guy ends up giving us InBev's portfolio, plus some odds and ends.

"In addition, many American micro-breweries that started out as craft operations have become so big and successful that they have been forced to succumb to the same corner-cutting economies employed by the industrial brewers. Their beer is still better than the national brands, but it's certainly not microbrew any more." Again, an unnecessary slam on U.S. micros. Examples please. I can think of two or three that truly fit this description, but just look at the breweries that have grown and maintained high quality. Bell's, Sierra Nevada, Anchor, Stone, Sam Adams and New Belgium come to mind. Yet, he says there are many regionals cutting corners and losing quality. Bull!

"When choosing beer to taste for the accompanying slide show, I looked for stylistic and geographic diversity." Well, he did a crappy job. Here are some stats:

5 pilsners

13 of the 20 beers are in three categories (the pilsners, pale ales/bitters, and Weiss beers).

4 U.S. micros. For an article written for a U.S. publication, I would expect more and more diversity. Given his comments on micros, I'd say this is not a micro friendly writer.

8 beers from global giants (not counting Grolsch and Dinkel Acker; too lazy too track down who owns these).

7 beers from Germany. 2 from the U.K. What???

Not a single stout, porter, fruited beer, lambic/gueuze, saison, bock/maibock, extreme beer, dark wheat, rauch, scotch ale, Baltic porters and strong lagers, etc. Do I expect every beer style to be mentioned? Of course not! However, the author's stated goal is stylistic and geographic diversity. D- on that effort and I'm very surprised by the defense his piece is getting on _any_ level. When you fail at meeting your primary, stated objective this badly, I don't see how to defend the effort. At a minimum a mention of the dozens of other styles out there would have been nice.

While taste is subjective, some of the comments on specific beers:

Boddingtons = authentic bitter. Sure, Steve G., I guess you could say that if your thinking authentic in terms of widely available in U.K. But come on, I think the use of this term implies authentic, Real Ale, not this nitro infused gimmicky (though pleasant enought tasting I suppose) beer.

Hoegaarden is "double fermented." First, bottle conditioned would have been a better term. Second, about 50% of the beers on the list are bottle conditioned.

Hoegaarden, he says, also displays that "trademark Belgium fruitiness." Yeah, all Belgian beers have that trademark. It peeves me when somebody with very limited experience tries to describe Belgian beer generally as having a single trademark. No exception here.

Paulaner Hefe and Paulaner Pils are the "quintessential" examples of their styles. Most popular/best selling maybe, but quinessential? I suppose that's just one man's opinion. Meanwhile Schneider Hefe is the "ultimate" example of a Bavarian wheat. This guy likes making extreme statements I guess.

Those of you in the U.K., is Sam Smith really one of the most beloved real ale producers in all of England? I've always heard that it's not a very big player (among CAMRA members or the general public) and that Brits are mystified by the Yankees' love of these beers. At a minimum, is Sam Smith really known for its real ale production?

Rare Vos lacks the subtlety of its Belgium ale counterparts. Why not compare Rare Vos to DeKonninck, Palm and other similar style Belgian Ales rather than Belgian ales as a whole.

Spaten Optimator has a long, tart finish. Tart?

Liberty Ale is a more aggressively flavored version of Anchor Steam Beer. Steve B., I would hope this one caught your eye, given the really cool piece you did on Anchor Steam Beer a few years ago.

O.k., I know I'm being overly geeky. Maybe what's bugging me is the author's tone. He strikes me as having a self-perception of being very well informed by the broad, judgemental statements he makes. I think this is very, very misleading to readers who may just be discovering beer and a disservice to the craft beer industry generally.

If you've made it this far, do you really feel that this was a decent piece, helpful to craft beer? If so, I'll shut up and agree to disagree.

Cheers!