There are interesting differences in approach. The CBS coverage comes from Deborah Patta, who recently left e.tv's Third Degree programme where she became known for her aggressive interviewing. Now she is back in the field, doing aggressive reporting, with graphic details.
"What CBS News is hearing is completely at odds with statements from (former President Thabo) Mbeki. Sources tell us that Mandela's liver and kidneys are functioning at 50 percent, and he had a procedure to repair a bleeding ulcer and another one to insert a tube." That's a bit too much information for me, Ms Patta.
She added: "We're told he hasn't opened his eyes in days and is unresponsive. We also understand that Mandela family members are discussing just how much medical intervention is enough for an old and very sick man."
She also claimed that Mandela had cardiac arrest on the night recently when his ambulance was stuck on the side of the road for 40 minutes. Officials confirmed the ambulance had broken down but said it did not compromise his care.
Patta attributes this information only to unnamed sources and "what CBS is hearing".
The BBC ran a blog sneering at their American rival. "We do not want to be lied to, but neither do we expect to be given private medical information," correspondent Andrew Harding wrote. "And so, when a US television network boldly declared this week that it had confirmed information about the state of Mr Mandela's internal organs, we shook our heads, declined to re-Tweet, and understood the genuine, bitter fury of (presidential spokesperson) Mr (Mac) Maharaj."
Mandela's health "is an intensely personal issue for many of those now involved in the distressing task of managing the flow of information from a Pretoria hospital bed, to a waiting world", Harding said.
The BBC is treating Mandela as they would their queen, worthy of special protection. The more hard-nosed CBS gives everyone the sordid details they would if it was their own president.
I am sure they view Harding's blog as displaying the kind of pomposity they would expect of Aunty Beeb.
The BBC later posted a further piece, modifying its position. Mike Wooldridge, BBC Correspondent, wrote: "The need to respect Mr Mandela's dignity is widely recognised. But the government knows public trust is at stake too." That's more like it, Auntie Beeb.
It is a classic ethical conflict: journalists want to be sensitive to a person's privacy and dignity, but at the same time one has the duty to tell people what one knows and avoid self-censorship. Most of all, though, one is obliged to challenge the authorities if one suspects they are being dishonest. I suspect that the ethical route lies somewhere between CBS's sordid details and BBC's original aloofness. A journo's first obligation is to the truth, not to protect the powerful.
Interestingly, South African news operations are hiding behind their international colleagues on this one. They would be lambasted if they did not show the utmost respect for Mandela's privacy, making it always likely that they will leave their international colleagues to make the running on this. News24 started by carrying the official denial of the CBS story as a way to get into it. M&G online was reporting that CBS is reporting it.
By Sunday morning, the locals were using the CBS report to call into question the government version. Are the authorities telling us the truth about Mandela?
