"what does the U.S. have for all that? Nothing, nobody loves U.S."

Actually, despite their tantrums, even the French love the US - take a look at the problems with the visa queue when the French didn't introduce the US-mandated biometrics in time - and that's the country the Yanks bang on about all the time when pointing the finger (instead of owning up to their own mistakes).

If people don't love the US, it's because of the idiot Bush regime and its abysmal record on almost everything. Bang on about the commies all you want, but it's the narrow-minded backwards neocon herd who've led your country into the sewer without a torch.

I subscribe a Finnish news paper "Helsingin Sanomat" and and English language version of "Le Monde Diplomatique". I also follow BBC, International Herald Tribune and Guardian on their own websites. Also sometimes "Al Jazeera". I only follow technology related news on CNet and the Inquirer (my two main sources for tech news). And sometimes I read Tech Report or Anandtech for hardware reviews.

One point is that I don't trust content produced by some online outfits for anything other than technology related news (where they actually have human reporters on site and expertise). Also I do make a lot of use of online media content from the sites where it is accessible. I do hope they can figure out some way to make revenue. I might be willing to pay for accessing some of these sites on phones for instance.

Science publishing (I work on bio sciences)is one area where the content has moved completely online and nobody misses the good old days. But there libraries pay for the content and sometimes the scientists who publish the articles (to make it freely accessible). Quality control is handled by peer review in a self-organizing manner without large amounts of editing.

I wonder however whether it would be possible to somehow organize free lance reporters to work in a networked manner and to write and submit stories all over the world. They would of course have to be paid somehow. Perhaps Google could do this and pay them out of advertising revenue? Of course if they are getting all the content for free maybe there is no incentive.

"The Guardian has an oft-stated mission to "become the world's leading liberal voice"."

Sure, any good citizen believe in taking from those who earn, and giving to those who do not. Obama knows all about the concept, so when I lose my job I'll be rich because I'll go on welfare.

HB

Good tech, bad product.

Giving away liberal "news" doesn't hide the fact that liberalism is just a polite way of saying Bolshevism.

Take from those who've earned and give it to those too damn lazy just so that they'll think you're a nice guy, and so that you'll think you're a nice guy. How phoney!

Buying people's affections doesn't work, just ask the U.S.; given away trillions of dollars over the years starting with the Euro-peons after World War II, and what does the U.S. have for all that? Nothing, nobody loves U.S.

So take your scummy failed leftist Bolshevik ideology and shove it where the sun don't shine.

you're reading the INQ and asking the Guardian to use a spell checker? rotf...

but I hope they use a decent spell checker...

Grauniad FWT!