When you produce a program that isn't really intended to be a news program, it is hard to know what to do when a big news story comes along – such as the death of the Pope. On the one hand, you simply cannot ignore it: that is not fair to the audience. On the other hand, listeners have been inundated by every other medium – they may well look to us for a reprieve from the news, especially when there really isn't "new" news. For a program such as Weekend America, my question is always, "What new insight can we bring to the story?" How can we provoke thinking in a new way that helps enlighten a story? This is an example of our "journalism of ideas?" Did we accomplish this? Let us know what you think?

Professor of Surgery from Yale

Please, balance the comments of your previous speaker! He was speaking of the Catholic perspective with obvious lack of understanding. His reference to "I don't know if he was speaking excathedra or incathedra" was particularly offensive. The excathedra terminology referes to those extremely rare moments when the pope speaks an undeniable point of truth of theology. This has happened only twice in history and both regarded Mary, the Mother of Jesus. His obvious ignorance of Catholic thinking lessened his credibility. Also, regarding the end of life issues - he failed to distinguish between food and
hydration, which the church considers basic and fundamental care for all
persons, and extraordinary measures like ventilators, which is what was keeping
Karen Quinlan alive. You know have the responsibility to present the facts,
this time accurately!