The "Famous Person Has Died" comic strip was pretty funny because in my opinion, it was dead-on in terms of how insubstantial certain breaking news stories are. There have been quite a few times when news stories have interrupted regularly scheduled programming to provide very small snippets of information on an event that people are just beginning to grasp the details of. It makes me wonder why they don't just wait until regularly scheduled news to break the story in a more organized way. Certainly in situations where a famous person has just died, there is hardly anything to talk about besides what little is known about how they died and why they are famous. In cases like Edward Kennedy's recent death, there has already been a large amount of information known for months about his health, and he has many accomplishments that can be talked about, so the coverage of that has been much more substantial than, say, coverage of Michael Jackson's death hours after it happened, or Jeff Goldblum's rumored death recently afterward. I think the Youtube video I've linked to is a pretty good real-life example of this comic strip and how dangerous it can be to report on a story when you have hardly any facts. The reporters barely say anything substantial; they just mention how he supposedly died and that he was an "all-around nice guy" and throw out names of a couple movies he's been in. I don't think that many people really enjoy watching reporters fumble around for something to say like this (except for the fact that it can be pretty funny). I think unless it's a story people should be aware of for safety reasons or to let people know about friends or loved ones who may have been in danger, journalists should probably wait to get a significant amount of information before they go ahead and interrupt your regularly scheduled broadcast.