Many people tuned in to see Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday night, but many were also hoping to see Beyoncé.
Harris, who was scheduled to attend, did attend, but Beyoncé, who was not officially listed on the Democratic National Convention schedule, did not attend.
There are many reasons.
First, there was some logic to it: Harris has been using Beyoncé's “Freedom” as her campaign theme song since last month, and she'd already brought a big-name celebrity, Oprah Winfrey, onto the stage at the Chicago convention, and the internet had been rife with speculation that a big-name surprise appearance was in the cards.
By Thursday evening, betting markets like PolyMarket had overwhelming odds that Beyoncé would perform, with Democratic National Convention attendees telling the crowd they were hearing some people were convinced Beyoncé would make a big appearance.
But the main reason many sensible people assumed this was a done deal was because TMZ reported it was going to happen. At 7:49 pm ET, just before most networks began their primetime coverage, the site proclaimed “EXCLUSIVE: Beyoncé Will Perform on the Final Night of the Democratic National Convention!!!”
The site's articles were cited throughout the media ecosystem, including typically stuffy, formulaic outlets like Reuters and The Wall Street Journal, and TMZ's coverage remained constant throughout last night's Democratic National Convention, even after Beyoncé's rep told The Hollywood Reporter that she wouldn't be performing, even after Harris finished her acceptance speech and the United Center stage was filled with balloons.
Finally, at 12:30 a.m. ET on Friday, TMZ confirmed, “Beyoncé did not attend the Democratic National Convention after all. To quote the great Beyoncé, 'I have to lay all, all, all of my cards down… I got it wrong this time.'”
The interesting thing about this story to me isn't that TMZ failed or how it failed, although I would certainly like to hear the background. (TMZ has been contacted for comment.)
That means that in 2024, for much of the modern media world, TMZ's report is pretty much accepted as fact.
Because for a long time, TMZ was considered inferior to traditional media: a gossip outlet akin to the National Enquirer: sometimes wrong, sometimes right, always salacious, but the kind of thing a serious news outlet would never approve of reading in polite company, let alone reprinting.
Both the site and associated television shows are now owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. TMZ began as part of the company formerly known as Time Warner and launched in 2005, when the internet was still a curiosity for many media professionals.
And for years, the site and its owner and figurehead, Harvey Levin, have also fascinated mainstream media, who have written profiles of Levin and his organization's exhaustive approach to gathering celebrity news. TMZ paid tipsters (taboo in the American media) and often published stories as quickly as possible, even if the subject claimed the news was false.
For me, TMZ's big breakthrough as a bona fide news source came when it broke the news of Michael Jackson's death in 2009. It was a shocking global event, and it was just as the world was beginning to understand that news could jump from outlandish sites to digital distributors like Facebook and Twitter, without the intermediation of a traditional news publisher.
He also highlighted one of TMZ's real strengths: getting people around celebrities — sometimes friends and family, sometimes people from the coroner's office or other agencies — to share the news about their deaths.
When TMZ broke the news of Prince's death in 2016, The Washington Post noted that while TMZ does this kind of reporting all the time, traditional media outlets were reluctant to cite it, often deferring to other sources instead — even though people all over the world were consuming TMZ's stories.
“The delayed response speaks to TMZ's inconsistency. TMZ is pretty reliable on many major news stories, but mainstream news sources are loath to rely solely on TMZ's word. In effect, a story doesn't become news until another source matches TMZ's reporting.”
TMZ's outlandish approach continues to lead to mistakes, and Levin's close relationship with Donald Trump has raised doubts that the site's no-holds-barred approach to news might actually be limited when it comes to Trump (again, drawing parallels with the National Enquirer, which literally worked for Trump).
But the fact is that to many people, even those who run serious news organizations, TMZ is now considered a perfectly legitimate news source.
If you're still not convinced, just take a look at this tweet from CNN's Abby Phillip, in which she declared that “TMZ suffered a major loss of credibility tonight.”
If you don't already have it, you can't lose it.
