Scoop 2.0
TMZ pays for news and isn’t a respected news source. Yet they broke the Jackson story. What’s a paper to do?
The key word there, I think, is “and”: TMZ does in fact pay for news, and TMZ isn’t generally considered a “respected news source.” A lot depends on whether you think those two clauses are somehow interconnected. I suspect that they aren’t, although the days when a grizzled beat reporter would pass a couple of sawbucks to a shoeshine guy and say “Tell me what you know” are pretty much gone forever.
Still, no one likes to be scooped, and most especially no one likes to be scooped by Harvey Levin, who’s embraced the seamier side of life ever since he wound up doing analysis of small-time small claims on The People’s Court. Still, he can’t be ignored, and traditional media guys will tell you so:
“TMZ is reporting it.”
I walked back to my office and called our digital news editor, Robb Hibbard.
“You have this Jackson story?”
“It’s not on AP yet,” he said. “I’d hate to put it up if one of our sources doesn’t have it confirmed.”
There are times when I think just about as highly of the AP as I do of TMZ, but that’s another story. And this seems indisputable:
The fact remains — the traditional media companies are held to a higher standard and sometimes in a bind. If they don’t publish “the buzz,” then they are seen as old-fashioned and slow to react. But if they do publish “the buzz,” then they are seen as journalists spreading rumors.
“There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.” — Winston Churchill
The trick, of course, is figuring out which half.
Steve Lackmeyer »
27 June 2009 · 4:06 pm
Great quote. I run into this situation a lot at http://www.okctalk.com. There’s one person on the site who fancies himself as a new media journalist and is quick to post rumors, unsubstantiated developments, etc. When he gets it right, he’s able to brag that his work proves he’s on top of the news and the “old media is not.” There is no mention, of course, of the many items he posts that end up being wrong. At some point my profession needs to do a better job explaining this difference and why we still matter.
CGHill »
27 June 2009 · 4:31 pm
Just like the old fortune-teller: you remember the time she was right and forget the 2,873 times she was wrong.
I can assure you, had I access to presumably-difficult sources, which I don’t, I wouldn’t be giving everything away on a message board.
GradualDazzle »
27 June 2009 · 9:53 pm
I think that the era of “reputable sources” and “disreputable sources” is fast becoming past tense. At least, in the way we’ve traditionally viewed them. I actually trust TMZ more than I trust the AP. Which is to say, I don’t really trust any of them THAT much, but at least I know what TMZ’s agenda is. The AP? I can venture a pretty good guess as to theirs, but they spend so much time pretending it doesn’t exist, it makes me wonder how much news they actually also pretend doesn’t exist.
Old Grouch »
27 June 2009 · 11:28 pm
They still have the old-media mindset that sees each story as a finished “complete and correct” project, not to be released unless and until it is complete and correct.
What’s wrong with sharing what you don’t know with readers/viewers? (less gate-keeping and more transparency of process) As: “We know (Or, “The AP is reporting” ) that Jackson was taken to the hospital. There is one report – by the TMZ website – that he is dead, but so far there’s been no confirmation from any other source. ***DEVELOPING***”
It’s a web page; you can always update it.