Maybe not for marketing wanks like her. What does she mean "never going to compete with TV or magazines"? Question... what do you spend the most hours a week doing... reading magazines or surfing the web? Sure, websites aren't the same as television or magazines, but they are still a very valid form of media with a growth rate that should terrify magazine publishers.
What she really meant to say is:
"Advertising isn't very effective on the web because the media isn't centrally controlled. Unlike TV or magazines, it's hard to justify charging an arm and a leg to make web-based ads, and it's harder still to make them pay off if you do charge an arm and a leg. If the ad pitches are particularly obnoxious, people will just go somewhere else..."
Graphics on the web will only get better as bandwidth and computers improve... and the last time I looked, magazines weren't very good at streaming audio, video, or animation.
Web browsers have been available to people for about seven years now. Only seven. As a means of comparison, the first cars, built around 1870, were steam powered and could travel short distances at around 3 miles per hour. In a decade or so, they were gas powered and could reach around 12 MPH... another decade, and they could reach around 33 MPH... and in another decade, around 70 MPH. All things considered, I think the web is about where cars were at the turn of the century.
We, ladies and gentlemen, have an Internet experience roughly comparable to a Packard Runabout riding over dirt roads.
Sure, it's quaint in retrospect, but there is a lot of room for improvement...