Commentary

'New Yorker' Takedown Of TMZ Falls Flat

The New Yorker has published its long-awaited investigation into the journalistic practices of celebrity gossip site TMZ, a lengthy expose by Nicholas Schmidle, author of the award-winning article “Getting Bin Laden," which was supposed to contain revelations so damaging that founder Harvey Levin was on the warpath.

Hollywood types have been gleefully rubbing their hands in anticipation of the ironic reversal, as TMZ finally came in for a dose of its own medicine.

But the 11,000-word piece, titled “The Digital Dirt,” doesn’t reveal anything particularly shocking or unexpected. Long story short: TMZ pays its sources for news, basically bribing all kinds of people to violate the terms of their employment — but leaving it unclear if any of it is actually illegal.

Considering that is standard practice in the business, this is not exactly sensational.

According to Schmidle, who interviewed scores of former TMZ reporters, subjects and sources for the article, the site often pays a pretty penny for its scoops. The price tag for surveillance video from the Revel casino in Atlantic City, showing Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice assaulting his fiancée in 2014, came to $90,000, while an earlier video showing him dragging her unconscious body out cost $15,000.

With these kind of sums on the table, it’s easy to see how TMZ gets ordinary folks to risk their jobs by purloining confidential video, images and documents for publication. In this case, it was probably a hotel security guard. (TMZ maintains a huge web of informers, ranging from entertainment lawyers and C-list stars to waiters, workers at limo companies and airlines, courthouse functionaries, etc.)

It’s also worth noting that they often get away with it. Schmidle reports that management at the Revel launched an investigation but was unable to determine which employee recorded the security footage using a smartphone.

The TMZ story was picked up by other news organizations and sparked a national debate about domestic violence in pro sports. Indeed, as the Rice incident illustrates, TMZ’s reporting isn’t always just salacious gossip. In 2009, it published a story documenting a lavish party thrown by a bank, Northern Trust, which had just received a $1.9 billion taxpayer-funded bailout.

In 2012, it published images showing four U.S. Marines urinating on the bodies of Afghan insurgents. TMZ was also the first to publish audiotapes in which Donald Sterling, the former billionaire owner of the L.A. Clippers, is heard using racial slurs -- ultimately forcing Sterling to sell the team.

Of course, the subjects of all this scrutiny aren’t fans.

In the article, actor Alec Baldwin memorably describes Levin as “a festering boil on the anus of American media.” But Schmidle concedes that even within the admittedly tawdry world of muckraking journalism, Levin actually displays considerable integrity.

Among other things, he “changed the rules for confirming gossip, by insisting on documentary proof…” TMZ also wins because it simply invests more in basic “shoe leather” journalism, for example by maintain three full-time reporters at the L.A. County Courthouse (compared to just one for the Los Angeles Times).

The article also contains some unflattering revelations about the workplace environment at TMZ, but again, this is not terribly scandalous stuff. Last year, a lawsuit by Taryn Hillin, a former staffer, alleged sexual discrimination and wrongful termination, and a former producer claims the office displays a “misogynistic culture” fostered by Levin sidekick Evan Rosenblum.

Sure, this behavior is not going to win accolades (nor should it) but – as the ongoing national conversation about gender equality demonstrates – it’s also endemic in the media industry and business world generally.

Some employees also apparently felt uncomfortable about the prominent role accorded to sex in TMZ’s coverage, with one recalling people standing around watching a celebrity sex video in the office. All I can say is, this is sort of like going to Sea World and complaining about having to work with all these marine mammals.

Finally, according to other former employees, Levin himself sounds like exactly what you’d expect when the cameras for TMZ’s various video tie-ins stop rolling – an “abrasive,” “domineering” taskmaster, known for “impetuously firing people” and who “has no problem publicly shaming you,” lobbing creative insults like “My fucking dogs are smarter than you!”

Personally I’d feel shortchanged if that wasn’t the case; I mean, what self-respecting preening martinet doesn’t compare his employees to dogs occasionally?

4 comments about "'New Yorker' Takedown Of TMZ Falls Flat".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Chuck Lantz from 2007ac.com, 2017ac.com network, February 16, 2016 at 4:06 p.m.

    "Long story short: TMZ pays its sources for news, basically bribing all kinds of people to violate the terms of their employment — but leaving it unclear if any of it is actually illegal."

    You lost me at this point. The legality isn't in question. Whether or not it's "journalism" if the source is paid huge sums of money is. And it ain't.

    TMZ is just the latest version of the common tabloid, where the article's accuracy - and the human collateral damage - takes a back seat to the draw of the sensational. The proof of the validity of any source of information such as TMZ is found in how many secondary media outlets use, or are allowed to use, TMZ as an original source. And the answer is; "very few."  Legitimate news outlets have lists of banned, or at the very least, highly questionable sources, and TMZ is on every list, along with Drudge, the Daily Mirror and others like them.

    So, the legality of TMZ's actions are far less important than the damage being done by them to that line in the sand, that separates legitimate journalism from the tabloid-sized, yellowish version.  


  2. Richard Potter from American Jewish University replied, February 16, 2016 at 6:36 p.m.

    I agree, Chuck, that paying sources is deeply problematic and outside the bounds of professional journalism. That said, I'll advocate for the devil on a couple of points: 1) You say the article's accuracy takes a back seat to sensationalism, but if it's true that Levin “changed the rules for confirming gossip, by insisting on documentary proof…”, then isn't accuracy sitting alongside sensationalism, even if the latter's always driving? 2) It's definitely not professional journalism by current standards, but how should we classify the Ray Rice video, for example? The fact of the matter is that the release of that video forced the NFL to lift up the rug under which it had swept the story, which resulted in a national discussion, a much less tolerant rule system for NFL, and arguably a shift in the social perception of domestic violence. So if it's not journalism, I'd nonetheless be hard pressed to say that it isn't very occasionally somehow valuabl.

  3. David Mountain from Marketing and Advertising Direction, February 17, 2016 at 11:31 a.m.

    TMZ. Not the journalism we want, but the journalism we... deserve?

  4. Chuck Lantz from 2007ac.com, 2017ac.com network replied, February 17, 2016 at 5:44 p.m.

    Richard:  The Ray Rice video is definitely the exception, but should we applaud TMZ for doing it right 1% of the time, while we condemn legitimate news sources for getting it wrong 1% of the time?  

    An author or painter can produce a single masterpiece and be considered "great", but a media outlet is judged by the quality and validity of their total output, and not by just a few articles that happen to follow the guidelines of legitimate journalism.  As David Mountain's comment suggests, when we begin to accept TMZ (and I'll add Fox News) as "legitimate" journalism, we are cheating ourselves.   

Next story loading loading..