“I will be missed.”

The Today Show's Richard Wilkins made the big-time this week when his embarrassing coverage of the supposed death of Jurassic Park star Jeff Goldblum was featured on The Colbert Report.

Goldblum was shown the cringe-worthy piece of journalism on Colbert's show and concluded he must be dead after all, before proceeding to eulogise himself.

Great stuff, but a sad indictment on the state of journalism. In an age of websites, blogs and social media, where anyone can spread falsehoods as swiftly and as accurately as a game of Chinese whispers, it's truly a rum state of affairs when these sick hoaxes aren't researched before appearing as fact on national television.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Jeff Goldblum Will Be Missed
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Jeff Goldblum

Naturally, the whole charade prompted Media Watch's Jonathan Holmes to give Wilkins a well-deserved bollocking on air.

Meanwhile, talk show host Jimmy Kimmel hit the street with the question everyone's been asking: where were you when you found out Jeff Goldblum was still alive?

To the Twitter end

I really hate April Fool's Day. Not because I'm one of the gullible saps who invariably falls for some far-fetched goof each year (because I'm not), but because suddenly, everyone considers themselves to be heeeelarious practical jokers who love to get their cretinous chuckles based purely on the concept of lying. How sarcasm became considered a form of wit lower than this is beyond me.

Anyway, The Guardian's annual joke article this year claimed the paper would fold in its printed form and instead be published exclusively via Twitter, the micro-blogging, social networking website that's apparently becoming a rival to the likes of MySpace and Facebook.

I signed up a week or so ago in a fruitless attempt to secure myself a decent username, only to find myself genuinely angry at how many people share my name (and assorted variations based on my initials). Apparently, identity theft is more commonplace than I thought. Ultimately, I settled on a half-hearted attempt at a pun in order to prevent myself becoming known as mweston73416.

For the uninitiated, Twitter asks one simple question: "What are you doing?". Users respond in posts, known as "tweets", which are limited to 140 characters or less in length. It's a bit like Facebook's status feature; indeed, the latest version of Facebook (a step backwards in this humble blogger's opinion) basically rips off Twitter, asking users: "What's on your mind?". You can also subscribe to other Twitter users' updates – known as "following".

The Guardian's a bit obsessed with Twitter, frequently reporting on its rise within the social networking sphere and even covering major events though it. Celebrities and public figures have also taken to the site, offering a unique way to interact with fans that doesn't impede on their privacy in the way that a Facebook page might.

Even though Twitter is undeniably on the rise, I can't help but feel it's a bit of a gimmick that'll fade into obscurity more quickly than the likes of Facebook ever will. Sure, it's neat to read what public figures are up to – I follow John Cleese and Charlie Brooker, though I couldn't be any less interested in what Ashton Kutcher has to say – but Twitter doesn't do anything that Facebook, emails or RSS feeds don't already.

Perhaps my opinion will change, what with mobile internet becoming increasingly popular and Twitter offering the ideal format to share bite-sized pieces of information on the go. But it ultimately strikes me as fairly pointless. Then again, so does April Fool's Day.

Australia’s information roundabout

Well, I'm back – and even more bitter than before, thanks to the debacle it's been to have our Internet connected.

After faffing about in a fruitless attempt to decipher the phone companies' incomprehensible Internet plans (and I'm kind of tech-savvy – a computer-illiterate person would give up in seconds), we finally went with Dodo, who, I've decided, ought to be as extinct as their moniker.

Earlier this week, we signed up to their extortionate wireless service ($45 for just six gigabytes per month – and that's only because we signed a 24-month contract; it would have otherwise been a paltry three gigs). Today, I awoke (at 9:30 – hey, I'm unemployed!) to the sound of the courier buzzing the intercom: our modem had arrived!

Having been Internet-less for over a week (I'd started getting the shakes), I excitedly tore open the package to see some pathetic little USB stick and a cable; we'd been given a "mobile wireless pack", rather than the Wifi modem we wanted. Consequently, just one of us can use the Internet at a time, and to do so, we need to connect the USB, do a bunch of clicking and enter our password. Even compared to our occasionally-reliable service in Alberta, this has been pathetic.

I spent hours on the phone to Dodo this morning trying to set it straight that this wasn't what I wanted, but with no luck. In fact, I was told that the contract stands and the fact that a mobile wireless modem wasn't what I asked for "isn't reason enough to cancel a contract". Unbelievable.

I'm floored at a) how much Australia's phone companies get away with; and b) how far behind the rest of the world we are in this area. In Canada, we parted with about $20 a month for way more than this; plus, we didn't have to fork out for the modem as well. And there was no contract.

Australia's information superhighway is like one big roundabout. With the amount of companies vying for business, you'd think the competition would drive prices way down. But, no.

Similarly, in the Web 2.0 age of extensive social networking on Facebook, video-calling on Skype and streaming clips from YouTube among an increasing amount of online activity, why are Australia's Internet companies seemingly making zero progress? The industry seems to be going in ever-decreasing circles, driving around a bewildered public, herding us up like helpless lambs to the slaughter.

If I sound frustrated, I am: mind you, if I'd have written about this earlier today, the cyber-air would have been blue. Though I probably would have been charged extra for swearing.

Wikipower

If anyone doubts the power of user-generated encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, this video is for you. Social media blog davefleet.com points to a clip showing the first two hours of development of the entry on US Airways Flight 1549, which crash-landed in the Hudson River last week. The page was created within minutes of the plane landing in the river.

We're now at the point where "Wikipedia" has entered our vocabulary alongside "Google" and "YouTube" as commonly-used terms (I use all three websites so often that I completely take them for granted). It's essential to remember precisely where Wikipedia's content originates, and that its veracity is far from guaranteed, but Wikipedia's goal of creating a free database of knowledge for everyone is truly admirable.

This video is a startling reminder of its growing power.

The Ricky Gervais Guide To... Medicine (2009)

The team behind the record-breaking podcast, The Ricky Gervais Show, is back with a brand new series of unrelenting drivel so sidesplittingly funny that I strongly advise against listening to it on public transport for fear of giving the impression that you're actually laughing at the creepy-looking guy sitting directly across from you.

I couldn't even begin to succinctly describe Karl Pilkington, but most of my friends will have probably heard me pass on a bizarre piece of unwisdom from him at some point or another. Prodded by fellow podcasters Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant (co-creators of two of the best British comedies of recent years: The Office and Extras), Pilkington shares his uniquely bizarre outlooks on life. Much of what he says is pure, concentrated bollocks, but there's occasionally a strange profundity to what he comes out with.

For those unfamiliar with his nonsensical genius, here are a few of Karl Pilkington's most memorable quotes from The Ricky Gervais Show...

On the mind: "Does the brain control you or are you controlling the brain? I don't know if I'm in charge of mine."
On evolution: "It goes bacteria, fish, mermaid, man..."
On gravity: "Could the world fall?"
On having a doppelgänger: "How would I know which one I was?"
On seeing an ultrasound: "It was an awkward situation because [the mother] was happy with it. I was like 'Oh, God'. It was an odd-looking thing. I couldn't say 'Oh, it looks like you' because that would be a dis."
On getting his girlfriend's attention if he transformed into a slug: "It'd be impossible. I'd chuck myself into the salt pot or something."

While The Ricky Gervais Show was essentially a series of glorious ramblings, The Ricky Gervais Guide To... Medicine is a touch more focussed, maybe even educational. It still contains some hilarious diversions (Karl describing an exhibition on Tutankhamun: "They had some video footage made up; it wasn't from the time"), while keeping in with the theme of medicine (Karl on the possibility that Russia or the US still has a supply of smallpox for military use: "To me, that's like in James Bond, when they don't kill him when they have the chance"). Pilkington summarises the world of medicine with this meaningless gem: "Today's cure is tomorrow's legache."

The Ricky Gervais Guide To... Medicine is occasionally a bit too crass for its own good, but when Gervais, Merchant and Pilkington's ramblings hit the target, it's nearly always a bulls-eye. After nearly eight years of chatter in radio and podcast form, it's amazing that there's still material to be plundered. As amusing as Gervais and Merchant are (which is very), the key to the trio's longevity lies in the fascinating mind of Karl Pilkington.

The show can be purchased from iTunes via the links at rickygervais.com.

YouTune

For the past few days, I've been completely unable to get Weezer's "Pork and Beans" (from their self-titled sixth album) out of my head.

It's got an incredibly infectious chorus and some great lyrics about being yourself, gleefully raising the proverbial middle finger at people who call others down.

The real hook, though, is its trippy music video, which is actually a three-minute tribute to the numerous "celebrities" YouTube has created. Many of the references went over my head, but there were a few I'd come across in the past. Weezer managed to actually round up dozens of these (in)famous faces to star, including the Evolution of Dance guy (YouTube's most watched video ever with over 100 million views!), the Miss Teen USA candidate who gave an incomprehensible answer to a simple question, the Numa Numa bloke, and, bizarrely, the guy who bawled his eyes out at Britney Spears' treatment by the press (which I won't link to because it's all a bit tragic and you know who I mean anyway).

Other YouTube phenomena are also paid tribute to, including Daft Hands, the guy who wore 155 t-shirts at once and that brilliant Diet Coke/Mentos experiment. The Sneezing Panda even gets a little cameo during the video's epic finale.

Admittedly, most of those videos aren't worth the time of day. In fact, I'd be the first to admit that YouTube is full of irritating gonks after their five minutes of fame. But the difference with the acts Weezer have selected is that, for the most part, "fame" seems to have been thrust upon them. And it's not the kind of fame most people would pine for; incessant cyber-mocking might be a more fitting description. Which is precisely why the song works.

Even if the video clip's over your head, there's no doubt the song will become stuck in it.