Here it is, 9PM, he's still alive! I would say, they jumped the gun.

Hey, it's already tomorrow in Italy, and the Pope is still alive...

Maybe you need to read this article and watch the FNC video

NEW YORK - Fox News Channel erroneously reported the death of Pope John Paul II on Friday afternoon, swiftly backpedaled and, within 45 minutes, apologized to viewers for the mistake.
Television networks were marshaling resources and dealing with conflicting reports as the pope's illness took a turn for the worse Friday, maintaining an electronic vigil like the Roman Catholic faithful gathered in St. Peter's Square.

Viewers could be forgiven for confusion as the cable news networks flashed reports at them. At 12:30 p.m. EST, MSNBC posted the words "Pope lost consciousness" on its screen. At the same moment, CNN was reporting: "Pope visibly joining in prayers of those around him."

But at 1:23 p.m., Fox News Channel anchor Shepard Smith reported that the pope had died. At least initially, he did not cite sources.

Within a few minutes, Fox reporter Greg Palkot in Rome was sending signals of caution, saying the report had not been confirmed and the network was checking into it.

"The exact time of death is not something that matters so much at the moment," Smith said.

It was unclear whether Smith had reacted to a report by the Italian news agency ADNKronos that a brain monitor hooked to the pope had gone flat. The agency cited no sources for its report, and a senior Vatican official, speaking on condition of anonymity, later told The Associated Press the pope was alive and that there was no such monitoring device in his apartment.

Fox spokeswoman Irena Briganti said a Fox producer, monitoring a translation of reports from Italian media, erroneously shouted that the pope had died and it had gotten on the air through an open mike. Smith was responding to the producer's words.

At 2 p.m., Smith explained to viewers that a Fox affiliate in Italy had been listening to an inaccurate report and it was transmitted to Fox.

"By way of explanation, I am very sorry," Smith said. "That's all I can say."

About five minutes after Fox's report, CNN reported that there were conflicting news agency reports about whether the pope was still alive. One of its Vatican reporters, Delia Gallagher, said CNN had no independent confirmation and "we have to be very careful."

The Associated Press sent an advisory to its members at 1:31 p.m. that some Italian media were reporting the pope was dead and that the AP was trying to verify the reports. At 1:55 p.m., the AP sent a NewsAlert that the Vatican had denied he was dead.

"There are a lot of conflicting reports over there and we apologize for the confusion," CNN's Miles O'Brien told viewers.

NBC News aired a special report around noon saying the pope was gravely ill, but for the most part the broadcast networks were on standby. NBC's Brian Williams stayed in the network studio for most of the day, ready to go on the air at a moment's notice with a special report.

NBC's Matt Lauer made it to Rome to anchor the "Today" show on Friday morning. Other network correspondents were either there or en route: ABC's George Stephanopoulos and CBS' John Roberts. NBC said Williams will also be heading to Vatican City.

Television networks have been preparing for this story behind the scenes for years, renting apartments and space on roofs overlooking St. Peter's Square so their anchors and reporters will have backdrops for the story. They were starting to use some of that space on Friday.

Almost forgotten by the cable news networks was the story to which they had devoted most of their airtime for the past two weeks: Terri Schiavo, who died on Thursday.

It's 'kewpie' doll, btw.

Dave

You're right Dave, my bad.

Hairy - why do I need to read some other article when I saw it with my own eyes? Mayve EVERY other network reported the pope had died, but it took CNN the longest to correct the error.

Seeing with your own eyes is fine. I saw it too, but apparently Fox was just as quick to try and get the scoop as CNN.

I agree Matthew, however, only one of those MSM stations stuck to it's guns that long, so convinced that their story was the correct story. They didn't just say, sorry, we screwed up, they posted on their screen that the vatican denied their story, not that their story was inaccurate.

While flipping through channels helping my daughter find a show to watch late yesterday afternoon, I stopped briefly to watch a local news report. I hit the clicker again when I heard the reporter say, "A spokesman is ready to give a statement after the Pope dies. We'll be here live."

Another death watch by the media. It's pretty sick, as is their zeal to be the first on the scene, accuracy be damned.

We have become a nation of Vultures, it seems .................

Maybe we sense something "bigger" on it's way ............

now someone is putting comments in under my name...cute really fucking cute.

Can someone put a stop to this please? Comment 10 is not mine.

oh my stars and garters..

andy sez...
*I've seen the film "Outfoxed" but I still think Fox News is the most legit TV news network in the business.*

the use of "most legit TV news" might be the Qualifier needed to make me stop laughing

allow me to just raise one point as to why i believe Fox is even more of an insidious propaganda machine than the other "infotainment news" sources that are out for ratings and ad dollars as opposing to any Journalistic Ethic

to andy..or anyone for that matter...can you tell me whi is the Chief Political Editor of Fox news and why this single fact is relevant to discrediting ANYTHING they put out there in the political arena as something other than spin and propaganda in a very real and literal sense?

go on..look it up yourselves...i'll wait..

for those unable to find it, or who are unwilling to go thru the effort, i'll Enlighten

none other than the Author and Aerchitect of the "Republican Revoloution" himself...former Speaker of the House, and the man that divorced his wife on her death bed so he could marry his own intern...Newt Gingrich

nuff said?

Excelsior!

I DIDN'T MAKE THE COMMENTS IN #10

having an identity crisis, are we?

someone is...and it ain't me.

I would never ever apologize for my weirdness!

fair enuff andy..my Apologies then

my comments are directed at post #10, no matter who wrote it

how's that?

Excelsior!

"Why is it so important to get the scoop, instead of getting the story straight? When will we get back to the point where the truth is as important as the story?"

It's called money, my friend. The only real media bias is towards making it. And you can take that to the bank.

that works for me too gonzo! I take all the MSM with a grain of salt...which is why I was surfing the news channels in the first place. Getting differing views on the days events.

For the record, I don't listen rush, oreilly, hannity or any of the other nutjobs out there. I've developed this strange view of the world all on my own.

andy sez..
*For the record, I don't listen rush, oreilly, hannity or any of the other nutjobs out there. I've developed this strange view of the world all on my own.*

fair dinkum, cobber..

thanks for the Disclosure..it will make any future Discussions that much more Interesting

>bows, hand over fist<

Excelsior!

I hope it does gonzo...I hope it does...

Andy, I have some very conservative friends who freely admit that Fox news is conservatively biased. That's why they like it. They don't think Fox presents a balanced view; they think Fox balances out what they perceive to be the liberal bias of other news outlets. But that doesn't mean Fox itself provides a balanced view, no matter what their marketing department says.

*I love Fox News, and everyone else should too.*

and that sums it all up, gentle Readers..

yer humble Narrator sez "nekkid"...you decide..

Excelsior!

Fox reports, you decide??! That about sums up they're crappy reporting.

I guess what the FOX slogan means is, "FOX reports, and you need to decide whether we're lying, doing our usual sloppy reporting, or just being our usual radical right wing tool."

that's not me folks. comment 10 or 22. Someone with no balls is using my name.

those who post comments using someone else's name will be banned

If you had been LISTENING TO CNN WHILE WATCHING FROM THE BEGINNING you would have known that CNN ran the disclaimer Italian News agencies report blah blah blah..CNN is working to confirm these reports.... What does that mean you may ask? It means Italian News agencies are reporting (even FNC's sister channel in italy where it all began) we're letting you know, but we're (CNN) working to confirm.

CNN covered it's butt, letting viewers know where the reports came from.

CNN was the ONLY channel that had "THE POPE IS DEAD" running across the bottom of the screen. No disclaimers...just a statement. That's what you saw when you turned on the channel. EVERY other news channel I flipped to after that had "THE POPE IS STILL ALIVE" running across the bottom of their screens. Looking back on it and reading one of the comments I did earlier, I assume that was the "CORRECTION" to an earlier headline that probably read similar to CNN's. The big problem was how long it took CNN to change the headline and then they couldn't admit the gaff they had to blame it on the Vatican! "VATICAN DENIES POPE IS DEAD". The Vatican should never have had to come out and deny something it hadn't put out in the first place.

It's bad enough I have to look at those talking heads, you want me to listen to them too?

Maybe they should have put something across the bottom of the screen that said, so and so is reporting that the pope is dead instead of trying to claim the scoop.

bhw - I agree that FNC does lean to the right, but hey, so do I. Probably not as far as they do, but I'm still a little right of center.

andy..

being Right of the aisle isn't the problem with Fox "news"...as i pointed out above..look who sets their "editorial" policy

i put forward that their function is Propaganda, and that the man that sets their policy is the same man that was the architect of the current Republican regime

i have no difficulty with an editorial slant as such...i DO have a problem when ALL their "news" and "information" suffers from such a slant

for all the regurgitation of the "liberal media" epithet you would be hard pressed to find as blatant an example of idealogical bias as you find on FNC

an honest Conservative like..oh..George Will or William F. Buckly...those guys i can understand..and Respect, even if i disagree with them upon occasion...they NEVER spin , nor create "facts", nor shill for the Party

but yer mileage may vary...

Excelsior!

I really don't watch enough nightly news to get that big picture you're getting ther gonzo. I would have to agree that if newt (who would name their kid newt anyway)is one of their editors then there probably is some spin there. It's my understanding that you can find the same thing on the other channels as well...ole' what's his name on meet the press talks about how he worked for democrats for years.

Honestly, I don't see how someone could possibly keep all of their feelings and positions on issues out of the things they report, especially if they write their own material.

andy..

Newt is not "one" of their editors...he is THE editor in chief..who sets the Policy for ALL the political programming

but you are absolutely correct in that i do endeavor to gain the "big picture", and i understand that not only are most folks not so inclined, but that most could care less

i subscribe to the Knowledge is Power Theory...

History as well as the interconnectedness of Things, coupled with the principles of "cause and effect" poured over Occam's Razor leads me into many Interesting observations

to see the principles of this Approach in action, try www.theyrule.net

open your eyes a bit, take it all in and think for yourself...that has always been all i have Asked of folks

but as G.I. Joe used to say, "knowing is half the battle"

and i take heed from both Sun Tzu and Zach de la Rocha when they say "Know your Enemy"

Excelsior!

>>none other than the Author and Aerchitect of the "Republican Revoloution" himself...former Speaker of the House, and the man that divorced his wife on her death bed so he could marry his own intern...Newt Gingrich<<

Say all the bad you want about Newt, but I'll say this for him. He has had some decent ideas over the years, and he's not a Neocon. He's also a big Heinlein fan - just like you, Gonzo. Bond with him.

Dave

"Bond with him"???

Dave..i would toss the miserable pigfucker out an airlock..

i bow to yer Knowledge here when you say he has read Heinlein...i know i ahve read his book, and i also watch after agreeing the things on the "Contract for America" were good things that we would all like to see done..

i then watch 2 months of CSPAN while they were in session and watched them check off those "good things" from their list with much fanfare...but each and EVERY ONE of the Bills passed had less than NOTHING to do with the stated points in the Contract..and EVERYTHING to do with the "neo-con" agenda

as for him having some "good ideas" i say he is a Propagandist of the worst stripe..he will be calm and reasonable in his statements, but those statements have NO correlation with the ACTIONS he claims fufill what he is talking about

so for his "good ideas" i say, even a broken clock is right twice a day

and i think of him as one of the most vile villains in american politics in the 20th century, who has gone and cashed in , and resides as the Minister of Propaganda over at FNC..

nuff said?

Excelsior!

I think you somewhat misunderstand the situation. You agree that his agenda was appealing, but that the execution left something to desire. I think he had much more personal control over the formulation of the Contract with America than he did on the actual passage of legislation. He was in power while the Republican party went through the main part of its infiltration by the Neocons. What you saw happening was the Neocons taking over, perverting Gingrich's agenda, and ultimately essentially forcing him out of power.

Dave

Dave sez..
*I think he had much more personal control over the formulation of the Contract with America than he did on the actual passage of legislation.*

um..he WAS Speaker of the House at the time, yes?..and just who is more powerful and sets the Agenda in the Congress when they hold the Majority?

sorry, Dave..i will have to disagree..my own readings and research puts him as Ringleader..not "innocent" bystander whose works were perverted.

i have watched too many of his live interviews, where he is not been able to stage everything...quite revealing actually

i place him as one of the worst kinds of Hypocrit..i do believe he KNOWS better..but he has succumbed to "the Ends justify the Means"...and we both know how i come down on that one...

Excelsior!