Well, Rupert Murdoch has now made FOX “News” appear tame in his dealings in the UK. Employees of his tabloid paper, News of The World, hacked the mobile phones of celebrities, politicians and pretty much anyone else they wanted. A few of them got in trouble with the law back in 2007 when this was revealed, but thanks to The Guardian’s reporting, Murdoch “settled in court” with some of the victims: In other words, paid them a total of about 1 Million Pounds and told them to shut up. Well, so much for that… Absolutely Rupert Murdoch is a son-of-a-bitch and should be banned from holding a license to practice business. It is going to be hard for his evil stepson Papa Bear O’Reilly to deny this one, using such trumped up sludge as free speech. As if he’d know…

Here is a summary of the reporting, but The Guardian has extensive coverage of this issue, so explore its site further if you’re interested.

Yet again, thanks to Jon Stewart pointing out how retarded CNN is, we are blessed with watching clips of those retards do what they do best: lie their asses off. Who actually believes what the hell they “report” anymore, anyway? Unfortunately, the only time I’ve actually watched CNN in the last five years has been when I’m stuck in an airport terminal and the batteries on all THREE of my electronic, music-playing devices have died.

So, to recap: CNN has used video from Budapest in a report about Belgrade (for those of you not to quick with the world geography, those cities are in two different countries), faked transcripts to try and cover up an interview with a drunken fire official in Florida (it just explains so much, doesn’t it?) and now they are just admitting outright that they are using “unverifiable material” in their reporting. As Stewart said, “Why don’t you just send me the sticker and I’ll put it on my f*cking television.” Priceless!

Recorded at the U.S. State Department, Clay Shirky talks in this TED Talk about how technology becomes phenomenal, or its uses become broader and more important (or more socially interesting), once that particular technology becomes technically boring and “everybody takes them for granted.” He used the example of the monitoring of elections via SMS in Nigeria in 2007, followed by the 2008 U.S. election and how we monitored our votes using cameras and phones. In other words, a first world country followed the example of a third world country not because the technology was new or revolutionary, but because the technology had become so common that it was part of the social landscape and therefore seen purely as a tool for everyday use.

Shirky goes on to explain how the media landscape has changed forever. Some of this is new, most of it isn’t, but Shirky’s analysis and explanation of the current and future state of media is well worth the time to watch. In particular, how we create environments for discussion and shape that conversation, has become the ONLY effective way of delivering a message and defining that message as “news” or anything else is getting harder and harder to do. I think one of the most important changes that has occurred is that today, we learn more from the discussion of the news than we do from the initial delivery of that news. ‘Twitter, Facebook, and cellphones can now make history.’

In my opinion, one of the most important jobs in this world is held by those who report from the parts of the world ‘less traveled by’. My favorite poem, by Robert Frost, finishes like this:

“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.”

Today’s New York Times prominently features a story on the inherent dangers associated with reporting from places often forgotten about. Sometimes the reasons for the inattention are due to the country’s lack of resources, failing public infrastructure or disassociated importance from the rest of the world. But often such places are not read about because of political pressure keeping such things unsaid. But ask any foreign correspondent about his or her sense of accomplishment and the answer will revolve around traveling the road less traveled. They have, putting their own lives in danger, impacted change throughout history in the most important way; telling stories.

Now, with the fractured media landscape and cost-cutting, these stories are not being told in the same fashion. First, we are seeing an increased bias towards “American” coverage, as opposed to news from the rest of the world, as I wrote about in April. But what international stories are being told, are being reported by different people or at least backed by different and less powerful organizations than the BBC and CNN. This has a very dramatic effect on the coverage or lack there of…

Back in March I asked my readers the following question after journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee were detained by the North Korean government:

“However, my more pressing question is whether or not the North Koreans would have detained the two for more than a few hours or days had they been on assignment for a large news organization. My guess is no; the larger organization would have worked to arrange their release sooner than Current TV is doing. Of course, it doesn’t even appear that Al Gore, the Chairman of Current TV and one of its primary investors, has had any affect on the situation (either out of choice or not). I’m sure the diplomatic back channels are buzzing because of Gore’s connection, but take a circumstance where the independent journalists don’t have the backing of a former Vice President. Do you think the same thing would be playing out? There are examples of this out there for sure. In Russian it doesn’t matter how big or small your backing is, but in African countries or other locales where the central government isn’t as powerful as in Moscow or Pyongyang, would it make a difference? What about in China where economic policy seems to trump all? When NBC has the backing of GE, does that matter? What do you think? Are small and independent news organizations more susceptible to political pressure with diminished resources for negotiation and the inability to apply appropriate political pressure?”

Apparently the mainstream media has caught wind of this precarious situation with today’s Times’ article. But if Al Gore’s journalists can be sentenced to 12 years in a labor camp, where does this leave us? Where does this leave those brave journalists willing to travel the road less traveled by, in order to make what difference they can?