Is TMZ becoming a legit news source?

I don't worry that TMZ is becoming a legitimate news source as I worry that everyone else is becoming illegitimate. They are spending hours on Michael Jackson when they should be spending time on important things, like the election in Iran.

No more so than Twitter. As Main Stream Media (MSM) cuts their budget for investigative journalists, they rely more on everyday people and paparazzi for their sources. TMZ is owned by AOL, which gives it some additional credibility.As far as Gossip Mags go, they are a step above Star or US Weekly but probably only in-line with People.

The difference is they are very well connected in LA, so stories involving stars are best covered by TMZ.

Well, considering the fact that people - including some journalists - turn to Wikipedia for "research", it's not surprising. Disappointing maybe... They did scoop the legitimate news sources on this one though. Maybe they're the new Drudge Report.(snrk).

I do think TMZ is a legit news source. Even though the majority of its content is centered around celebrity gossip, TMZ has also broken and covered other important stories. For example, in early 2009, TMZ broke the story about Chicago's Northern Trust Bank receiving $1.6 billion in federal bailout money and then spent millions of dollars on lavish parties in Los Angeles.

I think it's also important to note that TMZ's managing editor is lawyer, legal analyst, and journalist Harvey Levin. I think this is important because Levin is not going to allow inaccurate stories to be posted because of the legal ramifications involved. Levin has been quoted as saying that, "Everything is researched and vetted for accuracy."

So in conclusion, while TMZ is not a all-covering news outlet, like CNN for example, it is *a* legitimate source...even though its coverage is limited. The fact that the information posted can be trusted makes it legit, in my opinion.

No I would not trust it as a final place for information.

I found it bizarre that news sources were citing TMZ, especially considering the LA Times reported it first after speaking with the Fire Department captain.

When I want to learn about something, I turn on the news. I do not care if I am the first person to find out about something. And I certainly don't care about celebrities.

I think a lot of the information they provide is dependable, but I could not care less about the Hollywood gossip. I have too much of that already! But let's say TMZ specialized in politics and/or world affairs.

Even if this was the case, I do not care if I am the first to learn something. The news is always reliable, although they might hold biases when it comes to politics. They report on things when it is proven to be true, whereas TMZ just reports on things the first instants they dig up dirt.As people would say in the early-1900s: TMZ is full of muckrakers!

Hope I helped; have a great day!

People are a bit weary of TMZ, even they are known for top gossip on celebrities. They might have been the first to announce it, but official sources where people will believe it is, fox or cnn.

I've wondered about this sort of thing too, Spoon. The way that people consume, monitor and react to news has changed. We know that stale print media isn't the best source of current news anymore and a growing number of people turn to places where verifying facts isn't as important as breaking a story.

I think that most folks are happy to receive unsubstantiated real-time news from any source. However folks don't consider the news accurate until it has been substantiated. Proving that a story is accurate isn't as important as delivering the story quickly.

The Michael Jackson news for example was broke by TMZ but many folks didn't consider it "real" until the L.A. Times confirmed it. So, no... I don't think that TMZ is a legit news source. However I do think that it's a very important news source.

If they could form a process where a "current news" team broke stories and then a "substantiated news" team followed behind them, they would likely build trust and increase their legitimacy. However, I doubt that this will ever happen - they make enough money breaking news and letting other folks confirm it.

I've been a follower of TMZ for years now (hides head in shame, tucks tail between legs), but I have to say NO, they are not a legit news source. The key word you use is "news". They're reporting is limited, of course, to a very narrow subject, meaning they're far from legitimate journalists.

And they're anything but impartial and unbiased - they mince no words about mocking, critiquing, and judging celebrities. BUT...they are a reliable gossip source. Really reliable.

They pay big cash for reliable info, and they do their checking to verify it (or use careful wording). Their entire following is built around just how deep their reporters dig and how much they pay for headlines, video, an exclusive photos. If I were a major media outlet, I'd be checking in with them for pop culture news.

You know the old expression, "If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em"? Well I think that's what major media outlets are thinking, if they didn't include TMZ news scoops in their reports, they would have nuttin'! And all their readers would just go straight to TMZ!

So they're lying down with dogs, with the full understanding that the fleas are totally worth the price!

I'm going to say they are legitimate for celebrity news at the very least. They have a LOT of sources around celebrities and a very aggressive group of "news collectors" out there sending them information. They were able to nail not only Michael Jackson's death, but also Health Ledger's.

News outlets are only as good as their sources, and what TMZ might lack in tack they make back in their network. Does anyone know of one instance where they were wrong?

No more so than Twitter. As Main Stream Media (MSM) cuts their budget for investigative journalists, they rely more on everyday people and paparazzi for their sources. TMZ is owned by AOL, which gives it some additional credibility.

As far as Gossip Mags go, they are a step above Star or US Weekly but probably only in-line with People. The difference is they are very well connected in LA, so stories involving stars are best covered by TMZ.

Well, considering the fact that people - including some journalists - turn to Wikipedia for "research", it's not surprising. Disappointing maybe... They did scoop the legitimate news sources on this one though. Maybe they're the new Drudge Report.

(snrk).

I do think TMZ is a legit news source. Even though the majority of its content is centered around celebrity gossip, TMZ has also broken and covered other important stories. For example, in early 2009, TMZ broke the story about Chicago's Northern Trust Bank receiving $1.6 billion in federal bailout money and then spent millions of dollars on lavish parties in Los Angeles.

I think it's also important to note that TMZ's managing editor is lawyer, legal analyst, and journalist Harvey Levin. I think this is important because Levin is not going to allow inaccurate stories to be posted because of the legal ramifications involved. Levin has been quoted as saying that, "Everything is researched and vetted for accuracy.

" So in conclusion, while TMZ is not a all-covering news outlet, like CNN for example, it is *a* legitimate source...even though its coverage is limited. The fact that the information posted can be trusted makes it legit, in my opinion.

Although some people cringe at the thought of TMZ being a reliable source of information, others look to TMZ as their primary source for the latest on Hollywood gossip and controversy. If you look at the link below you can see what people think about TMZ in terms of whether it is a reliable source. Even though some people are skeptical of the source, they continue to watch the show and clips online because of entertainment.

These people don't really care if the information is true or not, they just want to be entertained and make their own judgments when they see the latest celebrity news. People also look to TMZ for the latest on breaking news involving celebrities because TMZ usually always has something to say about current events. The death of Michael Jackson had an unbelievable number of people visiting their website for the story behind his death and other related information.

Hope this has been helpful! Darius.

TMZ is becoming a legit news source. The reason it isn't there yet is due to its tendency to report on things that aren't really news, and because of some mistakes it's made in the past. Keep in mind that, regardless of what negative things people think and feel about TMZ though, they dig like crazy and usually get the important stories before anyone else.

Being first is invaluable. Also, without TMZs tenaciousness, certain stories would actually never come to light at all (though this obviously isn't the case with Michael Jackson). That adds some serious credibility over time, even if people aren't willing to acknowledge it quite yet.

Legitimacy is decided amongst peers. It may be seen as legitimate if other media outlets deem its content to be news worthy and have potential to generate buzz. It also is deemed noteworthy based on the risk of error of the story itself.

Some of the larger networks did not broadcast MJ death until a few hours after TMZ made its posts. This lends to the side of caution that the media outlets had in posting the information without real confirmation. They did so to reduce their risk of error.

I don't believe that TMZ will ever clear shadow of the title "tabloid". However, if matters relating to celebrities and their lives, TMZ can start to develop themselves as a legit news source. The major issue with legitimizing TMZ lies simply on the fact that TMZ will seemingly always allow gossip to be reported as fact.

They may have been the first to break the Michael Jackson story; however, until they choose to run only stories that are based on hard evidence (which they had with this story), I don't think that they ever be a legitimate news source.

I think TMZ is a good source of information especially in the line of Showbiz. It is frequently criticized for its usage of photographs and videos from paparazzi. With circumstances such as those surrounding the death of MJ in mind, some have questioned the effect that aggressive and obtrusive photographers have on the stars they cover.

But, this is what people wanted and TMZ is just trying to do there work. They also stated that "Everything is researched and vetted for accuracy. " Therefore I conclude that TMZ is a legit news source.

I mostly view TMZ as entertainment (or "infotainment" if some prefer), but there is no doubt they have broken several 'news' stories recently like the Michael Jackson heart failure / death. It's a good place to go for the breaking news if it involves any hollywood celeb. Even if they didn't break the story, they're likely to have accurate up to date information.

Their information is almost always correct, but in case something is incorrect they always correct it ASAP. Occassionally their reporting holds a bias like in the cases of Carrie Prejean, which is the only thing to watch out for. And in the case of 'Chaz' Bono sex change they kept kissing her (his) butt just to try to get more exclusive info.

The website is better than the tv show but it's great to be able to see all these interesting stories on tv every night (and the sunday night recap is great in case you missed them all during the week! ).

As strange as it is, I do think TMZ is moving into the arena of "real news". I remember when TMZ published the Rhianna photos(with the black eye), and it was strange because everyone automatically assumed they were real, un-doctored photos. As is turns out, they were real.

Previously, I think many of us had seen TMZ as the "Star" magazine of the internet. Somehow, they have managed to break every huge entertainment story lately , and the stories have been legitimate. With them now breaking the Michael Jackson story, I think they've cemented their status as the "go-to" place for breaking news.

I remember when CNN was considered just an alternative news source on tv, but it didn't have the confidence level from the American public that, say, ABC or NBC news did. At some point CNN began to break news before the other stations, and I think that put them above the others. They've never lost their place, even now.

TMZ is , of course, focused on entertainment news- so of course it's not a legitimate news source for, say, news on Iraq. However, I do know that when my friend told me on the phone "Oh my gosh they're saying Michael Jackson died. " , my first move was to jump onto the TMZ website.

When I want to learn about something, I turn on the news. I do not care if I am the first person to find out about something. And I certainly don't care about celebrities.

I think a lot of the information they provide is dependable, but I could not care less about the Hollywood gossip. I have too much of that already! But let's say TMZ specialized in politics and/or world affairs.

Even if this was the case, I do not care if I am the first to learn something. The news is always reliable, although they might hold biases when it comes to politics. They report on things when it is proven to be true, whereas TMZ just reports on things the first instants they dig up dirt.

As people would say in the early-1900s: TMZ is full of muckrakers! Hope I helped; have a great day!

I did not doubt for a minute that Michael Jackson was dead when TMZ reported it. They have too much riding on their reputation to risk being wrong. Their reputation includes knowing first and best what no one else knows, especially the gossip on Hollywood..

I like TMZ. I believe that they are a legit news source. They seem to be very accurate.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.