Google users trusted LA Times more than TMZ for Michael Jackson coverage
TMZ has received a fair amount of coverage over the last few days for being first to break the news of Michael Jackson’s death, beating both the LA Times and CNN (which waited until the LA Times confirmed the death to report on it). But as a blog post in the LA Times pointed out today, sometimes it’s more important to confirm a fact than be the first to report it.
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.
There’s some evidence that Google users may find credibility more important than speed. I was chatting with an editor at the LA Times who pointed out that Google Trends showed that more searches were aimed at the Times’ coverage of Jackson compared to TMZ’s reporting. Below is a screenshot from that day’s Google Trends:
As you can see, three different searches related to the LA Times — including one directly referencing Jackson — were more popular than TMZ. This gives at least some evidence that though TMZ broke the story of the death, Google searchers were checking in at the LA Times to confirm it.
The Times’ editor I spoke to said there was no ill will toward TMZ, but pointed out that CNN is owned by TMZ’s parent company, and even that network waited for the LA Times rather than relying on the celebrity gossip site.
But now that TMZ was proven correct, does this mean that mainstream outlets will trust its coverage in the future? What would it take for it to become a trusted news brand?
I stand corrected. I’m a bad human. I was one of those who was flag waving at TMZ for allegedly scooping the legit media.
I think with a lot of the electronic media outlets, it’s such a hideously fast race to get something online to just get the traffic to their site, even if they have to later retract what they said or edit the heck out of it…but they got the traffic to their site.
When I googled this, the first newspaper I got that confirmed his death was a newspaper in Singapore, refreshed and got a newspaper in Canada, and lastly refreshed and got the L.A. Times.
While I am more inclined to trust the L.A. Times for a lot of my information… I have learned that in this day and age, trust is a very fragile thing. Perhaps the only people to blame for this is the media itself…
My thinking is this. TMZ broke the news first because they could. If they were wrong people would just think “Oh well it’s TMZ” But if the Times got it wrong there would be a huge backlash. I was one of the people to wait for the times before I was convinced.