Since, at least, 1999 the WAY that news SPREADS and is CREATED has drastically changed. This fact is what legacy media outlets are really the most concerned about. Social media, in the case of MJ announcement, is clearly no more than parroting and spreading a corporate news media story more quickly. However, much independent reporting, and especially that which "breaks" the story, happens using social media and social friendship networks. The movement away from monolithic and monopolistic news/information sources and towards individual and distributed/collaborative methods is the most important change.

The stakes are high for governments and legacy media outlets alike. China blocked Twitter in preparation for the Tiananmen anniversary to prevent independent reporting, not to prevent friends from getting together for a drink before it. Likewise in Iran. Further, legacy media outlets want to have a special status when they ask for 24 hours. What happens when an individual twitters about an event first? Do they get 24 hours? Not likely under their lobbyist version of copyright law. Only "official" media outlets would likely get the protection. I believe the protection legacy outlets are asking for is at least a small evidence that they are in the death-throws and a bit desperate.