Michael Jackson coverage - TMZ says he's dead, nobody else does

[Elliotte Friedman]

I'm curious about what's going on at CNN today.

Certainly, it's important to be cautious with a celebrity death story. You don't want to be wrong. But, yesterday afternoon/early evening crossed over from "We want to be accurate" to "We can't get this confirmed, and everyone else is." It was a bad, bad day for the network, and you have to wonder how it's handling things behind the scenes.

 

[fishwrapper]

It's about eight miles down Santa Monica Blvd. to UCLA Medical Center from the CNN Building.

 

[Furry Tractor]

I'm curious about what's going on at CNN today.

Certainly, it's important to be cautious with a celebrity death story. You don't want to be wrong. But, yesterday afternoon/early evening crossed over from "We want to be accurate" to "We can't get this confirmed, and everyone else is." It was a bad, bad day for the network, and you have to wonder how it's handling things behind the scenes.

It got to be very difficult to watch there for a while, with CNN going from "hospitalized" to "coma" to "everyone else is reporting he's dead but we haven't confirmed it."

 

[MacDaddy]

LAT writes about it:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jackson-media26-2009jun26,0,1993773.story

so TMZ is owned by Time Warner and CNN is owned by Time Warner, yet TMZ reported this nearly two hours before CNN

crazy stuff

Corporate synergy strikes again! Oh, wait, it doesn't.

 

[Double J]

This is interesting because I was thinking about it on the "Walter Cronkite is ailing" thread - you really couldn't imagine, in this day and age, a network news anchor reporting that, basically, "we think the president is dead, but we really don't know it for sure."

But you know what? I say, why not say something like that? You don't stop trying to confirm the news, and you make it clear that what you're saying is unconfirmed, but you're telling what is happening, what is being said - and isn't that what news reporting is really all about?

 

[schiezainc]

This is interesting because I was thinking about it on the "Walter Cronkite is ailing" thread - you really couldn't imagine, in this day and age, a network news anchor reporting that, basically, "we think the president is dead, but we really don't know it for sure."

But you know what? I say, why not say something like that? You don't stop trying to confirm the news, and you make it clear that what you're saying is unconfirmed, but you're telling what is happening, what is being said - and isn't that what news reporting is really all about?

Well, you also need to be at least a little bit sure and/or see other news agencies reporting the same thing. For instance, unless FOX and MSNBC are saying the same thing, if you're CNN you don't want to come on TV right now and say "Giant asteroid on a path to destroy Earth, maybe, we think. We don't really have confirmation per se but we don't have confirmation that it's not about to happen right now either."

 

[Cadet]

This is interesting because I was thinking about it on the "Walter Cronkite is ailing" thread - you really couldn't imagine, in this day and age, a network news anchor reporting that, basically, "we think the president is dead, but we really don't know it for sure."

But you know what? I say, why not say something like that? You don't stop trying to confirm the news, and you make it clear that what you're saying is unconfirmed, but you're telling what is happening, what is being said - and isn't that what news reporting is really all about?

Well, you also need to be at least a little bit sure and/or see other news agencies reporting the same thing. For instance, unless FOX and MSNBC are saying the same thing, if you're CNN you don't want to come on TV right now and say "Giant asteroid on a path to destroy Earth, maybe, we think. We don't really have confirmation per se but we don't have confirmation that it's not about to happen right now either."

But people are talking about it on Twitter!!1!!!

Seriously, if we want to retain any kind of credibility, we don't say shirt like that until we have it confirmed. Let the TMZs and the Faux News outlets of the world talk about what other people are talking about.

Get it right. It's the number one rule of our profession. Let's try not to abandon it.

 

[Clerk Typist]

This is interesting because I was thinking about it on the "Walter Cronkite is ailing" thread - you really couldn't imagine, in this day and age, a network news anchor reporting that, basically, "we think the president is dead, but we really don't know it for sure."

But you know what? I say, why not say something like that? You don't stop trying to confirm the news, and you make it clear that what you're saying is unconfirmed, but you're telling what is happening, what is being said - and isn't that what news reporting is really all about?

On Nov. 22, 1963, CBS News did just that, both on TV and radio, with Dan Rather going on the word of two priests leaving Parkland Hospital. Not official as in from the White House press office, but good enough for Rather, and thus CBS. Other networks then followed.
The difference? Rather gave the source, TMZ did not. But BBC used TMZ's report before any other traditional news organization, I think.

 

[schiezainc]

This is interesting because I was thinking about it on the "Walter Cronkite is ailing" thread - you really couldn't imagine, in this day and age, a network news anchor reporting that, basically, "we think the president is dead, but we really don't know it for sure."

But you know what? I say, why not say something like that? You don't stop trying to confirm the news, and you make it clear that what you're saying is unconfirmed, but you're telling what is happening, what is being said - and isn't that what news reporting is really all about?

On Nov. 22, 1963, CBS News did just that, both on TV and radio, with Dan Rather going on the word of two priests leaving Parkland Hospital. Not official as in from the White House press office, but good enough for Rather, and thus CBS. Other networks then followed.
The difference? Rather gave the source, TMZ did not. But BBC used TMZ's report before any other traditional news organization, I think.

TMZ didn't cite their source because 1.) They didn't have to, 2.) They want to use that source again and that person clearly broken the rules of hospital confidentiality so to reveal them would likely get them fired.

 

[anonymousprick]

This is interesting because I was thinking about it on the "Walter Cronkite is ailing" thread - you really couldn't imagine, in this day and age, a network news anchor reporting that, basically, "we think the president is dead, but we really don't know it for sure."

But you know what? I say, why not say something like that? You don't stop trying to confirm the news, and you make it clear that what you're saying is unconfirmed, but you're telling what is happening, what is being said - and isn't that what news reporting is really all about?

Well, you also need to be at least a little bit sure and/or see other news agencies reporting the same thing. For instance, unless FOX and MSNBC are saying the same thing, if you're CNN you don't want to come on TV right now and say "Giant asteroid on a path to destroy Earth, maybe, we think. We don't really have confirmation per se but we don't have confirmation that it's not about to happen right now either."

But people are talking about it on Twitter!!1!!!

Seriously, if we want to retain any kind of credibility, we don't say shirt like that until we have it confirmed. Let the TMZs and the Faux News outlets of the world talk about what other people are talking about.

Get it right. It's the number one rule of our profession. Let's try not to abandon it.

Just because most of us view TMZ's fare as frivolous doesn't mean they don't adhere to that number one rule of yours. Their track record on breaking news within their realm -- and getting it right -- suggests that there is someone with a journalism background calling shots over there.

 

[SF_Express]

Seriously, if we want to retain any kind of credibility, we don't say shirt like that until we have it confirmed. Let the TMZs and the Faux News outlets of the world talk about what other people are talking about.

Get it right. It's the number one rule of our profession. Let's try not to abandon it.

I have always thought this, but it's getting harder. If the whole world is talking about Xxxx being Y, then how can you not at least acknowledge that the world is talking about this? This is a very good discussion we've had around here lately.

This isn't ideal news reporting as we have known it, but very little is as we have known it anymore these days. It's certainly not as black and white as it used to be.

I'll repeat my props to TMZ about being right when it comes to things of the most gravity. If I read a death on there, I'm going to have no problems putting it on the website (attributing it to TMC, of course).

The "someone with a journalism background" is Harvey Levin, who is known to many because of the People's Court, among many other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Levin

 

[Blitz]

AP, FOX News and L.A. Times now confirming death. Looks like TMZ whipped everyone.

Yes, they did.
Folks who don't wanna admit it are being unrealistic.

NY Times had a bylined story yesterday about how TMZ kicked everyone's ass.