It was as easy as ABC for social media sites to start spreading news of Michael Jackson’s death last week.

Unfettered by the conventions of the established media, rumours of the star’s death began emanating across the social media spectrum within minutes of his actual passing.

Were these quick off-the-mark tweets, status updates, forum comments et al posted by omniscient informers or just unfounded (yet spookily accurate) speculation?

Celeb website TMZ has been basking in the glory of being the first official news provider to break the story, while the broadcasters and newspapers who waited almost an hour for the coroner’s confirmation (including CNN which shares the same parent company as TMZ – Time Warner) were forced to credit their online rival, who announced the news just 18 minute’s after the King of Pop died.

Once TMZ had published, social media again stepped in to play its part, with an immediate spike in tweets and drastically increased traffic on Facebook helping to spread the word across the globe with startling rapidity.

But as shown by those early tweets on Thursday 25 June, users can post whatever they like, without hesitating to check the facts, and it won’t be long before other users pass on information and misinformation alike, allowing the message to spread with viral efficiency.

Within hours of Jackson’s death a malicious web hoax reporting the demise of Jeff Goldblum and Harrison Ford in a tragic filming accident began doing the rounds. An unfortunate Australian reporter even announced the ‘story’ on a prime time news show.

So it all comes back to this old chestnut – new media versus old media, citizen journalists versus professional journalists versus man on the street tweeting whatever he likes.

Does it really matter if there is inaccurate information floating around the web? Well, yes and no. Yes, because it isn’t so much floating as hurtling thanks to the speed with which sites like Twitter enable this information to be passed on. And no, because surely the general public is able to discern for itself the difference between a respected, reliable news provider and an unknown, unregulated rumour mill?

Gossip, which was once sluggishly passed on in pubs and cafes and on the phone, can now whiz around the world in a matter of seconds but the principles are still the same. Just because it’s on a screen doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be subject to the same disbelief, doubt and suspicion as comments made by the water-cooler, overheard in the supermarket queue or announced in the playground.

Filed under: Public Relations