From TechCrunch:

“Online media network Current TV has so far remained deafeningly silent over the arrests of two of its reporters, Chinese-American Laura Ling and Korean-American Euna Lee, who were detained by the North Korean military earlier this month after crossing the border between China and North Korea while they were reporting on refugees fleeing poverty. Reports about the arrests surfaced last week, when the NY Times reported the detention.”

The post goes on to discuss the latest speculation that the two journalists have been moved to the capital, Pyongyang. This is not a good situation any way you look at it, but I’m wondering what would have happened had Ling and Lee been working for the New York Times, NBC, the BBC or some other large news organization. First, would they have been allowed to cross the border by their superiors? Blow-back is more severe and more costly the larger the organization (not to mention consequences from the chain of command).

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?

I’m sorry, but is Brian Williams completely unable to find positive stories on his own? And since when does the national media, especially those on television, think that “good news” is actual news? From MSNBC:

“So he (Williams) made a plea seconds before the end of NBC’s newscast on Wednesday: We’re looking for good news. Nominate people doing good work, perhaps a random or regular act of kindness in a cruel economy, and we’ll tell some of their stories.”

Are you fricken kidding me? Go find these good stories yourself! That’s your job!!

Seriously, what the hell are they thinking? Thanks to the New York Times for this one (yes, I’m thanking a mainstream newspaper). “For more than a year, NBC has been investigating the possible perpetrators of human rights abuses in several countries…” Great! I’m all for finding and bringing to justice the hundreds, if not thousands of individuals responsible for war crimes around the world. If an investigative journalist wants to take the lead on this one, then that is even better.

But good ‘ol NBC has decided to team up with a Rwandan prosecutor for its first round of subjects, much like it teamed up with Perverted Justice in its “hit series” “To Catch a Predator”. As if that wasn’t enough, now NBC is making a fool of itself in teaming up with a Rwandan prosecutor, who by the way hasn’t actually filed any charges, to confront people suspected of war crimes. Read the story if you really want to see what a sham of a news operation NBC has become. I think we can safely say they fit the bill as Media Slackers.

Last night, Walter Isaacson continued his campaign to charge for the news by appearing on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Again, Isaacson used some really bad examples (the iTunes comparison) to defend the use of micro-payments for newspaper content. However, he did bring up one good point and that is how will foreign correspondents be paid if the news is always free? Watch the interview below and then come back for more:

You can see the discussion that has again bubbled to the surface because of Isaacson’s article, and I think that is the most positive thing to come out of all of this. At least people are talking about how to save the news. But the biggest problem, that we eluded to on Friday, still remains: The newspaper industry is simply too big to support itself in its current form. (Read more about who actually owns the news here.)

If they want to start charging for content, let them try it and see where it leads them. People will find a way around it and alternative sources will rise in popularity AND quality. Pretty soon the community newspaper with its fleet of five part-time reporters might be able to afford sending one of them to Baghdad to report. Then again, I learned more about the situation in Iraq from the Iraqi doctor walking around filming his daily work then I did from the past six years of coverage from CBS, NBC and ABC combined! If one person in Baghdad can make that much of a difference in the video world, who’s to say one person can’t accomplish the same in the print media.

At least I imagine T. Boone Pickens was sayin’ somethin’ like that. I can’t believe I’m agreeing with T. Boone Pickens! Seriously, I feel, or at least I hope, I was raised better than this, but I’m actually taking his side in his fight with NBC and his push at more creative means of providing energy to fuel this country’s insatiable thirst. But, the latest and greatest to come out today, just as Pickens is releasing a campaign of TV commercials aimed at “informing the public of the need to invest in alternative energy sources,” as well as further his investments in alternative energy sources, is a tiff with NBC.

Have you heard about this? Jeff Zucker, the CEO and President of NBC Universal, originally released a statement regarding NBC’s decision not to air one of Pickens’ four ads promoting his energy plan. Pickens, in turn, released his own response to the decision that was made by NBC alone, while all other networks were allowing the ad to air.

First of all, I’m not sure how a business man and self-proclaimed oil magnate, can have an energy plan for the US involving alternative energy sources when our own elected officials can’t seem to device one that makes sense, but I’ll leave that for another day on another blog. The official line Zucker pushed was that NBC would have liked Pickens to do a bit more fact-checking about the claim he makes in the ad, but I’m not so convinced.

The ad, embedded below, states that Iran is putting natural gas-powered vehicles on the road so it can sell its oil for $120 a barrel to the US, while “we’re not doing a thing here” to promote natural gas or wind energy and instead funding terrorist states by buying the $120 a barrel gas. NBC argued that the US is doing something about alternative energy (as is Pickens’ company of course) and I can only guess that by the US, it means its parent company, General Electric. Now I don’t really have an issue with who NBC makes its ad revenues from, because it can conduct its business how it pleases (within the constraints of the law). However, when executives dictate the broadcasting of ads, not based on fact, but because its parent company thinks it might be bad for business, Houston – We have a problem.

The latest update is that it appears Pickens’ statement had an effect on NBC and they have cleared the way for the ad to air.