Rumor mongering and innuendo by the press in advance of Vatican vote

The press is a sadder and sadder spectacle of itself and its increasingly obvious agenda.

I have read these reports of pre-conclave Vatican scandal in the AP, the New York TimesUSA Today, the Denver Post, the Houston Chronicle and numerous others.

In each one I find myself searching and reading ahead, eager for detail and something worthy of the editor having posted the article.  In each case, I only find something like this:

...reports have suggested the revelations in the dossier, given to Benedict in December, were a factor in his decision to resign.

Or this zinger:

The report is explicit. Some high prelates are subject to 'external influence' -- we would call it blackmail -- by nonchurch men to whom they are bound by 'worldly' ties.

In other words, nothing.  I'm not in the newspaper business, but shouldn't an editor or news director preview pieces for the presence of actual news content?

These articles, and their companion TV news reports, amount to passing on insubstantial and unsubstantiated rumor.  If readers still approach newspapers with the expectation of news and facts, it is no wonder that the business model is failing - pure innuendo is not worth the price.