Just to expand on that a bit – People, for example, doesn’t break stories as much as its competitors, but it’s a lot more narrative-focused. And people like narratives, explanations, reflections, analysis, jokes, lots of other things that aren’t just breaking news.

TMZ is increasingly impressive at getting the raw info out there first, but in the grand scheme of a story, it’s only one part.

TMZ doesn’t have a perfect record – they jumped the gun on Natasha Richardson, for example, so their sleazy if not necessarily regularly inaccurate coverage isn’t the only thing that makes the MSM nervous.

Mostly it’s this: TMZ is a fairly new entity, so it’ll take awhile until they build a track record. If they’re almost always accurate, they’ll build credibility to the point where the MSM always trusts them. If they blow too many stories, they’ll fall into the National Enquirer gray area.

As to how it works, it’s pretty simple: they’re run by a lawyer/journalist (JD, University of Chicago!) whose professional career has focused on the LA celebrity beat, the site obsessively focuses on one beat – they don’t divide their attention or approach at all – and they spend a lot of money to blanket it. If you combine experience, focus, and money, you’ll probably succeed in beating people.

But keep in mind that’s all they do: they try to break celebrity stories before anyone else. It’s a huge niche, but it’s still a niche. There’s a tradeoff, usually, between doing one thing better than everyone else and doing a lot of things well. Maybe they’ll continue to succeed, but there are dangers to putting all your eggs in one basket, even if you have a really big and popular basket.

They do have one advantage that “traditional” American journalism doesn’t: they pay for leaks, both pictures and verified tips. Most journalists won’t do that, they do, and that gives them an advantage, right or wrong.