It seems to me that the only real chance of getting consistent, high-quality, relatively objective news is if it's produced by a non-profit organization.

The Guardian in the UK is a good example of this: it is owned by the non-profit Scott Trust and, in my view, is the best paper in the UK. It also has a high-profile web presence but its content is predominantly sourced from the newspaper.

Another example is the BBC. It is a 'state' broadcaster but is not under government control (although you suspect it's leant on by the government from time to time). But, along with its World Service, it is probably the most trusted news organization in the world. The BBC is funded by a licence fee (a tax, effectively) that is compulsorily payable by everybody in the UK with a TV. This model is always under attack by the right-wing press, particularly the Murdoch-owned press, but is nevertheless supported by the vast majority of people in the UK. We all moan like hell about the BBC (with some justification) but would be horrified if it were to disappear.

Even most of the independent media organizations want the BBC because, in their heart of hearts, they know it keeps the rest of them honest.

The surge did not win.

What American troops are doing now under Petraeus is what they should have done all along - more numbers on the ground, treat Iraqis with respect, get the local militias on side, concentrate on construction not destruction. So far, so obvious, but kudos to Petraeus for at least realizing it and pushing the policy through.

But there's no 'win' about it. The war is forever lost with its hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, thousands of dead and disturbed American soldiers, the near destruction of an entire country, the huge rise in terrorist activities as a result, and the loss of American influence, trust and respect around the world. Iraq was lost the day the US started this illegal war with its murky and cynical aims.

The best that can be hoped for now is for a quick American withdrawal followed, no doubt, by Iraqi turmoil, but, presaging one day and with luck, a stable Iraq running its own affairs.

Amongst all the conflicting stories, I think a picture is emerging about the torture practices of the US and the UK.

Judging by reports in The Guardian, The Mail and Telegraph in the UK, there is no doubt that captives were rendered by the US to countries like Pakistan where they were tortured, and also that torture was used, by Americans, on some captives in Guantanamo.

The Mail and Telegraph are right-wing papers and not exactly known as champions of civil liberties but would, nevertheless, use any stick to beat the Labour government with, hence the stories of MI5/6 complicity in torture. It seems definite to me that British agents, while, not actually torturing, still looked to profit from it, hence the embarrassment of the UK government.

I just hope that UK pressure groups, the newspapers, lawyers, and even some MPs can keep the heat on over this. The UK government must not be allowed to get away with this, and if the truth finally comes out, then this should help the same process in the US.

I think the main difference here between the British and American responses to these war crimes is the reaction of the media.

The British government is ducking and diving, first denying categorically that Britain was complicit in torture, and now grudgingly conceding that investigations must be held. You can bet your bottom dollar that either the British government did indeed know what was going on (in which case they're lying when they say they knew nothing about it), or they made sure that 'officially' they knew nothing by keeping it at arms length enough to allow theselves a plausible deniability. Both are equally disgusting and shameful.

But the media are now on the case. Sure, the right-wing media (like the Daily Mail) and the Murdoch-controlled media wouldn't pass up this chance to have a go at the Labour government, but they're still right to do so. And also enough MPs, of all parties, look like they're not going to let this one go. And I think they're going to succeed and the whole sorry mess will be dragged blinking into the daylight.

But the US media doesn't look ready to do this. Why not? I can only think it's because it conflicts too much with America's image of itself and with the narrative of what America is - 'America isn't like this, it doesn't do things like that'.

And that's the diffrence: I can tell you for sure that the British media, jaded and cynical as they are, are all too willing to believe their government is capable of terrible things and wouldn't hesitate to report them. There's a downside to this attitude, of course, but, on balance, I'd rather have it that way