Here's a story about how Prince William might be engaged to Kate Middleton soon. If you read carefully you'll see it's based entirely on the fact that June 3 and 4 have been “mysteriously blocked out on the palace diaries". That's it. That's all the actual evidence the story presents. Perhaps you're thinking, "I don't understand-- what does that have to do with an engagement announcement?" It's not you, dear reader; it's the Telegraph. Oh, and at the end of the story even that flimsy premise is called into question: "A source said suggestions Buckingham Palace had cleared its diary were 'wide of the mark'."
I noticed that story because I was looking at this one about Archbishop Gomez being appointed the new coadjutor of L.A. That story says, "The appointment was described as the Pope's revenge on Hollywood for filming The Da Vinci Code." It goes on to assert, "The appointment will give Opus Dei enormous influence in the American Church and Vatican." The second statement sounds almost as silly as the first (more's the pity). It's pretty obvious the writer knows very little about his subject. If that's true of the stories on the Catholicism it's likely true of other stories as well; I just don't notice it because on most subjects I share the reporter's ignorance.
Let us end this post with my favorite picture of the Pope from his days as the German Cardinal Ratzinger. :)