Two journalists debate TMZ's accuracy versus its methods. One worries the outlet pays sources or cuts ethical corners to break news first. The other argues the information matters more than how it's obtained, and shares how TMZ controlled the questions when they worked together.
How did, how do journalists perceive, perceive tmz?
Well, how do they perceive it? You know, they break a lot of news and I think that a lot of news organizations end up following what TMZ breaks. I think, I think where the reservation comes in is, is how did they get that information? How did they, you know, was somebody paid off with somebody, you know, what were the methods of getting that information? So it's less about the scoops and the information which, which most of the time turns out to be correct. It's more the, it's more the methods. So I think that's, I think that's where, I think that's where sort of traditional news media has, has a, has a bit of a pause when it comes.
Yeah, they question the ethics is understandable. But when it comes to breaking news stories and when it comes to the public and when they want news, they're not looking so much as the ethics. Information is information. And I know having worked with TMZ in the past on stories, they wanted me to do an interview on a story, for instance, and then they would tell me what the questions are were going to be and then they give me a follow up call. Okay, so this is what we heard. Now we have this, this, this and this. And I said.
