Oct 21, 2022·edited Oct 21, 2022Liked by Trungphan2
This is an interesting article, but your "red line" examples are really weird. You're comparing apples with oranges.
TMZ didn't publish Hulk Hogan's sex tape because it was a covert intimate recording, and exposed them to the kind of legal risk which eventually killed Gawker. Whereas Dustin 'Screech' Diamond distributed his content himself, hoping to cash in on the sex tape boom of the mid 00s. TMZ would have paid him directly for it.
A file about Britney Spears kids is just that - A legal document about the children of a celebrity. The Alec Baldwin voicemail is about Alec Baldwin throwing a temper tantrum. They are two stories with different ethical considerations surrounding publication.
When Levin talks about the Phelps story being a 'set-up', he means that it was a still photo of Phelps back turned to the camera and his mouth apparently raised to a bong. It isn't quite 'hard evidence' of drug use, and could easily have been spun as a joke - Phelps at the time denied smoking cannabis. Compare it with say, the video footage of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford clearly smoking crack in a motel room, the Phelps photo is weak sauce. Levin could have published it for cheap titillation, as TMZ is want to do, but that would probably undermine your point about TMZ vetting tips.
I have a love/hate relationship with TMZ. Everything you state is accurate of course, but once Levin hopped fully aboard the Trump train, I found it hard to visit the site. They still sadly get my views though, whenever there is "Breaking News". :-p
Man this article had a lot of potential. You touched on some of the ways they're spending money but not a single line on how they're generating some. I expected when they spend 250k on a video for that video to get them even more money...and would have loved to see you go a bit deep in that. Yes, we know ads. ...But some more info would have helped.
This is an interesting article, but your "red line" examples are really weird. You're comparing apples with oranges.
TMZ didn't publish Hulk Hogan's sex tape because it was a covert intimate recording, and exposed them to the kind of legal risk which eventually killed Gawker. Whereas Dustin 'Screech' Diamond distributed his content himself, hoping to cash in on the sex tape boom of the mid 00s. TMZ would have paid him directly for it.
A file about Britney Spears kids is just that - A legal document about the children of a celebrity. The Alec Baldwin voicemail is about Alec Baldwin throwing a temper tantrum. They are two stories with different ethical considerations surrounding publication.
When Levin talks about the Phelps story being a 'set-up', he means that it was a still photo of Phelps back turned to the camera and his mouth apparently raised to a bong. It isn't quite 'hard evidence' of drug use, and could easily have been spun as a joke - Phelps at the time denied smoking cannabis. Compare it with say, the video footage of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford clearly smoking crack in a motel room, the Phelps photo is weak sauce. Levin could have published it for cheap titillation, as TMZ is want to do, but that would probably undermine your point about TMZ vetting tips.
I have a love/hate relationship with TMZ. Everything you state is accurate of course, but once Levin hopped fully aboard the Trump train, I found it hard to visit the site. They still sadly get my views though, whenever there is "Breaking News". :-p
This reminded me of first hearing about Kobe’s death from TMZ. It’s intriguing how they are a legit source but have this uniquely odd reputation.
I get a similar vibe with DailyMail. Sometimes I see a piece and am like- “damn this is some actual journalism”.
Man this article had a lot of potential. You touched on some of the ways they're spending money but not a single line on how they're generating some. I expected when they spend 250k on a video for that video to get them even more money...and would have loved to see you go a bit deep in that. Yes, we know ads. ...But some more info would have helped.