Wednesday, July 01, 2009

TMZ Speed vs. CNN Credibility – Pick One

Et tu, Richard?

The hypocrisy I’m seeing around the Michael Jackson news story is laughable. But it’s not very original. We’ve heard this all before.

What’s the motive behind declaring a winner and loser for who broke the story? Does it change the story? Does it give TMZ exclusive rights to the story?

Yet Web 2.0 super nerds are seemingly on MSM death watch, cheering with every development that can be considered a nail in the coffin of the fourth estate. And these same people would step over their own family if a CNN, New York Times or even smaller, niche and trade publications came calling asking them to contribute.

”The TMZ Beats CNN Pile On” is not a story about old being beaten by new. It’s several issues twisted together. Trying to deal with them in one blog post is like trying to read the Kama Sutra while riding a Sit & Spin.

Speed vs. Credibility
If this is about speed vs. credibility, new media will usually win speed and mainstream media will usually win in credibility. But more importantly, if mainstream media sacrifices their credibility, they have nothing left.

Case in point…as the world mourned Michael Jackson and the Internet moaned under the weight of it all, a new Twitter avalanche began that asserted Jeff Goldblum had passed on.

Thankfully the “Earth Girls are Easy” star is still with us today. But what if, after getting their shorts handed to them by TMZ, CNN said “screw it, we’ll be first THIS time” and reported that Jeff Goldblum was dead? Game over. But the Twitterverse can say anything they want and sleep soundly. We let them. We are them.

CNN lives in a different world than TMZ and is held to different rules as a result. Newspapers can get sued if they retweet something deemed libelous in a court of law. Something tells me TMZ budgets for law suits.

More People or the Right People?
If this is about getting exposure in the best possible outlets, TMZ is a niche publication. You won’t see a TMZ reporter at Davos…unless we find out Amy Winehouse is speaking at the World Economic Forum. One thing new media has shown us is that it’s no longer a question of the most exposure possible. It’s the right exposure that will move the needles measuring our programs. Bottom line is that public relations needs to blend the benefits of new media and mainstream media to reach its goals.

And we can work to make that happen with the urgency of knowing that we’ll all die someday. But unlike MJ, MSM is not dead. Not yet.

Twitter @prblog and @badpitch
Image via Some e-cards

5 comments:

Jamie said...

I think you're right it is a mix of issues twisted together. As you said, TMZ is a niche publication and in this case it did what it was good at: having their finger on the pulse of celebrity news. Past credibility aside, because they happened to get it right on such a big one this time, their "credibility" just went up in many peoples' eyes. Hopefully that means that the next time they break a story we won't have to have this conversation again. But as you aptly pointed out, this is not original and will certainly entertain us again.

Nick Lawhead said...

TMZ guessed at this coverage and scored when they were correct. I was not the only person on Twitter that was waiting for a confirmed report from a legitimate news station. So many people were waiting to hear from LA Times or CNN. TMZ doesn't get credibility for being right one time. They'll get credibility when they earn it from the people for being accurate a bunch of times. When the whole Twitterverse no longer asks "have any outlets besides TMZ confirmed this death?" then TMZ might be a player in the news. Until then, they can keep chasing Paris Hilton down Rodeo Drive.

@nlawhead

RAB said...

TMZ doesnt take itself seriously or ask to be taken seriously. Hence the inclusion of dancing monkeys and minor stars at airports with nothing to say in their feeds. There was maybe 1 hour between TMZ and CNN on this story and frankly it made little difference to anyone except TMZ and those who wanted to be the first to Twitter "RIP Michael" mostly as a way of wowing their friends as to how 'up to date' they were.

Amazing how many Tweeters feel passionate about whatever is trending at that moment. You could profile the average Twitterer as an Obama Voting, Prop 8 No-ing, Madoff-hating, Credit Crunch analyst, Free-Iranist, Michael Jackson fan.

Someday the twitter community will realize that its most devout listener is itself.

USe twitter for info, views etc but dont use it as a benchmarking tool or an opinion poll as it will be wide of the mark.

Janet Hansen said...

Ey tu. Great piece. Agree wholeheartedly that we must strike a balance in this manic world of news. It makes me long for the days of the black and white TV, listening to Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley and all the great journalists of the time. They were GREAT!

TMZ makes me shake my head in wonder. Like how in the hell do they do it? Are they ambulence chasers to the stars? And really, who cares about all the piddley little things they bring to the table as the world turns 24/7? This is is a crass craft that does blot out NEWS that is really happening in the world, and the stuff that REALLY matters.

It was really disappointing to hear Larry King have to say that though his show was scheduled to do a Farrah Fawcett tribute, the MJ story was much bigger, so he wouldn't be covering Fawcett's death. I'm sure Farrah's family felt a lot better after hearing that.

How is it that the media made MJ the lonliest man on earth by taking jabs at him every time he could be found, then suddenly turn around and make him the biggest news story LA has had in ages?

Has technology driven most of us out of our ever loving minds? Let's hope not.

Janet Hansen
Scout66.com

Nancy said...

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this one. (Sorry Richard!) MSM is having an uncomfortable time adjusting to the fact that new media is taking away their ability to be a breaking source, but they still have credibility and depth by far.

I personally don't bother with TMZ, but if Harvey Levin says it's true, I believe it. You got to applaud the guy for being balls-to-the-wall in getting scoops. His sources may not be ideal, but he's usually not wrong.

On your note about lawsuits: TMZ, as an internet "content provider," is immune to most lawsuits by way of Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects websites from being sued when they republish content written or stated by others, no matter whether it's libelous or not. The same protection does not extend to print or TV media.

Coincidentally, I recently wrote about that issue on my blog: Liable for Libel? Lawsuits aren't always the answer