How would we have reacted if TMZ had been wrong about Michael Jackson's death?

As news outlets sprang into action to report on Michael Jackson’s condition June 25, users on social media sites were whipped into a frenzy: He’s not breathing! He’s in a coma! He had a heart attack! And then a Facebook status update, made at 2:21 p.m., that Jackson had died.

Of course, 23 minutes later TMZ would become the first outlet to announce the singer’s death. What came next was a surprise. Before the RIPs and the “he touched us all” jokes, many users began posting jabs aimed at CNN -- more specifically, its irrelevance as a news source. One person joked that TMZ ought to write an obituary about CNN’s death. Another user suggested that CNN spend more time reporting and less time advertising its Twitter page. But what if TMZ had been wrong?

Has technology’s ability to deliver information at such a rapid pace corrupted us? It’s one thing to marvel at how social media sites have helped spread Iranian news we might not have attained due to censorship -- and with such timeliness; it’s quite another to have become a culture that prizes speed over confirmed facts. Have our standards for accountability dissolved?

“I’m not sure it’s technology that’s breaking down the barriers of accountability,” says Jeffrey Seglin, author of The Right Thing, a weekly ethics column published by the New York Times Syndicate. “The National Enquirer broke facts about the O.J. case before other media outlets did. Matt Drudge reported information on the Monica Lewinsky affair that Newsweek had been sitting on.” But that was the ‘90s, before gathering and spreading information was as easy as turning on your iPhone, anywhere, any time. Can you imagine if TMZ’s story spread on Twitter before Jackson’s family even learned of his death? And who was TMZ’s source anyway? The site’s managing editor, Harvey Levin, said he and his staff made hundreds of calls,  but he didn't  divulge whom they spoke to, which makes one question whether they confirmed the news with a reliable, accountable source -- as is required by the Los Angeles Times -- or if they spoke to someone who was violating patient confidentiality.

When 19 employees at this same hospital, UCLA Medical Center, were busted in 2008 for snooping through Britney Spears’ confidential medical records, it was hard not to wonder why they’d have risked their jobs. Were they looking for a story to sell just as their colleague, Lawanda Jackson, had done? She was indicted in 2008 for selling information about Farrah Fawcett and accessing hundreds of other files. If that’s the case here, are we seriously going to trust people who’re willing to break the law for some fast cash?

“A curious thing is at play here,” Seglin continues. “Few people expect TMZ or Drudge or the National Enquirer to get things right or to report on issues of substance. When they do, at least so far, it’s a bit of an anomaly. So the consequences for getting it wrong among such sites do not seem terribly high. If CNN, Fox … got such things wrong, the consequences would likely be higher. That said, Fox News didn’t take as big a hit as it might have after it was revealed that the reports it filed on Sarah Palin not knowing Africa was a continent were based on a hoax.”

Maybe our cultural mentality has changed. If we’re going to let Fox off the hook  for scratching up information and relaying it without fact-checking it first, perhaps we don’t care about journalistic integrity as much as we care about salacious status updates. Would TMZ take the same approach to a political figure, which in turn could pose a threat to national security? Let’s hope we never find out.

-- Alexandra Le Tellier, Deputy Editor, Brand X

Photo credit: Ed Betz / Associated Press

Comments

[srob]

They were not wrong. You were late and they got the story. Print newspapers are out of date.

[JoJo Dee Dee]

TMZ did not get it wrong. What a waste of an article!!!!

[la_rob]

Wow, here's what i learned from this entry: Drudgereport = TMZ and National Enquirer. Plus Fox gets it's facts wrong, that from a writer for the NY Times. What was this article about again?

[Ed A]

You're worried about Drudge, Fox and TMZ.How about Jayson Blair,Mike Barnacle and that woman from Boston Globe. Don't throw stones when members of main stream media(I use media loosely) can't be objective about politicians and what they are doing to our country.

[RepublicanHero]

But were they wrong? No. So shut up.

[Reality Check]

The bottom line is, they were right. Somebody who knew the facts apparently told them. They have a better source in this case than you do. Get over it. Their whole world is celeb stalking. Are you surprised they had the real scoop before "real" news outlets?

[Matt]

L.A. Times....and all the rest of the dying media. Just face the fact, your time has come and gone. No longer do you corner the market on breaking news. No longer do we clamor for a newsboy standing on a street corner hollering "Extra, Extra! Read all about it!"

Newspapers are a dinosaur. They are slowly going extinct and howl at the meteor that is the internet as it plummets toward the earth bringing with it their extinction. The dinosaurs were not fast enough, or smart enough, to survive the aftermath. The newspapers will face the same fate because within the cloud of the meteor are the masses that tire of obvious left-wing media bias perpetrated by the newspapers.

We want truth and facts, which the newspapers stopped bringing us long ago and exacerbated with their sucking on Obama's power teet.

R.I.P. print media.....don't go away angry.......just go away.

[MH]

“A curious thing is at play here,” Seglin continues. “Few people expect TMZ or Drudge or the National Enquirer to get things right or to report on issues of substance.
- - - They should remove Drudge from this statement, as Drudge reports news already posted on other RELIABLE sites.

[nom]

excellent dig at fox news at the end. I was worried I was about to read a article that didn't have a partisan dig.

[denny]

what exactly has Drudge gotten wrong. I always hear people in the "liberal leaning" side of life trash Drudge, but they always fail to point out what he has gotten wrong. I, for one, would love to know.

[nodog]

Are you kidding me??? The fallout for TMZ getting it wrong would be WORSE for them than it would have been for FOX, ABC, or even the LA Times, who have ALL been wrong before. The BIG DOGS can take the hit...the little dog would get whipped mercilessly in the media...and even when they get it right (much to your chagrine!) they STILL get whipped for a big "what if...".

Truly pathetic! !

(But I'll give the Times a small credit for being the first BIG DOG to come out with the news....a full 30-45 minutes AFTER TMZ did. LOL!)

[Geoff]

Fox has the ratings, you don't. You goofed up, deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Wrong. Drudge getting things right is not an anomaly. As much as you probably wish that were true, it's just not so.

[dmccall]

but...they...weren't wrong, so this piece comes across as sour grapes. I wonder what would have happened if CNN had reported Michael's death before, say, his family was ready to orchestrate their reaction or, even the Nation of Islam was ready to execute the next stage of their plan... Perhaps Big Media is such a machine in bed with the wrong people that they cannot get the news out before figuring out how to manipulate us with it. Just report the facts and keep the fluff to yourselves, or your irrelevancy will be here sooner than expected.

[Stephen Shirley]

Baloney.

CNN immediately reported that unconfirmed sources (TMZ) were reporting Jackson was dead. If CNN was worried about journalistic integrity and felt restrained to double source the information, they shouldn't have "cheated" by saying that other sites were reporting the death.

Either source the information yourself or don't report the rumors.

[The David Show]

I think this is an excellent argument. There's nothing wrong with the TMZ's of the world, but folks need to remember what CNN, LA Times, ABC7, and the rest of the media are there for -- accuracy and accountability. People want to shovel dirt over the so-called "old media," but they're missing the point. YES, old media was slow to realize the direction information flow was going. YES, they are late to the party. But NO, the "new media" sites are not an adequate replacement. They are interesting and valuable and bring a lot to the table, but there needs to be the media organizations who will actually responsibly do their jobs, and do them the right way.

[Davis]

I disagree with some of the points in this self serving LA times "journalism", first it was the "prestigious" Newsweek, that had verfied info on Monica and simply sat on the info. That my friends is not professional journalism, but political cover. So it is with great truth that Drudge informed the public to info that Newsweek hid. I also disagree that to list Drudge with TMZ and National Inquiry shows your own personal business agenda. Everyone reads Drudge and knows that his reputation for accurate info is better that most print news including the whiney LA Times.

[Max]

I'm not going to start following TMZ for my Iraq War coverage.

But couldn't you argue that they are a reliable source for entertainment news? And even though this is a massive story, it is related to entertainment and celebrity gossip. Dead celebrity gossip, but still.

The problem with TMZ's reporting is that they source some guy whose dog walker has a cousin that works in the hospital. Yeah, TMZ turned out to be right, but I don't feel as though it was official until CNN and the LA Times reported it to be true. Twitter crashed with people saying TMZ says he's dead. But the tributes and full story wasn't offered until real news sources came through with the confirmation.

http://modernjew.wordpress.com

[James Hargraves]

Internet is the only way to get un-slanted news. That is why nobody buys the newspapers. The only place to follow the real news i.e: Iraq, Obama raising taxes when he said he wouldn't is the Internet.

[Ron Reale]

This guy Seglin is a real piece of work. It is the opposite of what he says. We don't expect the MSM to get anything right, or at least not tell us the truth about what they are covering up. Drudge, the Enquirer and TMZ are trusted.
LATimes, NYTimes, big media- liars all, in the pocket of the hite house, out to destroy American Capitalism.

[ayoung]

WHAT IF ???????

[John Rothfuchs]

you idiots are just pissed lol

[Missing the point]

TMZ is sadly right more often than not. You can question what if they were wrong but the bottom line is they were in fact right. CNN also dropped the ball 2 weekends ago on live coverage on Iran to the point where #CNNFail was a trending topic on Twitter.

Nothing personal LA Times but I believe you guys were second to the punch, what if TMZ hadn't reported and YOU were wrong?

The bottom line is their reporting was accurate on this story.

[Matt Essex]

I cannot believe the LA Times is actually concerned about verifying the facts before publishing a story. It has never concerned them in the past, why should it bother them now? As their circulatioon declines, and they become even more irrelevant than CNN, all that's left at the end of the day is the coupons for the grocery stores, and the comics. It would be sad if they hadn't done this to themselves by being completely biased and useless as a source of facts in the first place.

[Ferguson]

Are you kidding???? You got scooped and you complain about the sources being anonymous and perhaps unreliable. I guess we should count on the LA Times and the MSM to name their sources in the future so we can be sure of their reliability. I'm not holding my breath.