I didn't visit the old USAToday.com, very much, but the new version allows people to "vote up" stories.

They can also comment directly on stories -- something globeandmail.com has been doing for a while. Here's the full highlight list taken from the editors' note:

• Scan other news sources directly on USATODAY.com;
• See how readers are reacting to stories;
• Recommend stories and comments to other readers;
• Comment directly on stories;
• Participate in discussion forums;
• Write reviews (of movies, music and more);
• Contribute photos;
• Better communicate with USA TODAY staff.

Most of this is not particularly paradigm-shifting. The nytimes.com has allowed people to write mini-movie reviews for a while (and to let others vote on them), photo contributions have been around for years, and the BBC has posted links to stories from other news organizations (although they aren't a commercial service).

What USAToday is doing with its redesign can best be described as the new normal.

An interesting juxtaposition in Sunday's Toronto Star.

Haroon Siddiqui has been sticking up for Pakistan in his last several columns.

Sunday's effort (Memo to Canada: Might won't win in Afghanistan) is more focused on Afghanistan, and where Pakistan sees the NATO-led effort as going wrong. Actually, some of the advice he quotes from Pakistani politicians about Afghanistan seems to be pretty good.

On the facing page is this headline for an editorial: Pakistan's stability imperilled by terror.

An excerpt:

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has long scoffed at the idea that his country has become a sanctuary for terrorists, as Afghanistan was before the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S. Just last month he said he was "500 per cent" sure that the top Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, was on the run somewhere in Afghanistan.

That claim will be hard to maintain, now that Pakistan's army has reportedly captured Mullah Obaidullah Akhund in the Pakistan city of Quetta. He is one of Omar's two top deputies, sat on Omar's council and was Taliban defence minister before 9/11. Other Taliban were captured with Akhund.

Clearly, if Omar isn't in Quetta running the Afghan insurgency beyond the reach of 50,000 American, Canadian and other troops, his top men are.

Ya know, I don't recall Mr. Siddiqui mentioning the arrest of Akhund in the Islamist snakepit of Quetta -- making Akhund one of the few top-ranking Afghan Taliban to be nabbed in Pakistan. In comparison, at least three top al Qaeda operatives have been grabbed in that country. However, the arrest -- and public word of it -- were both available well before Sunday's column.

What would Siddiqui make of the arrest? Would he paint it as showing Pakistan to be a solid ally in the war on terror, or did Pakistan only grab a big fish this time to take some of the pressure off?

All I know is that Star's editorial board seems to be more skeptical about Pakistan than Mr. Siddiqui is.

Well, it's more that Essjay isn't who he says he is, and that he lied about his creds. The unravelling of his secret forced the New Yorker to issue a rare editor's note.

The Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News are offering readers a sponsored digest page that looks more Web than print.

The NYT story.

The U.S. says a convoy of Marines was attacked by a suicide bomber, then came under fire from multiple enemy positions. Civilians died because they were caught in that crossfire.

Afghans say the U.S. troops shot up a 10-kilometre stretch of highway indiscriminately. But some of the wounded Afghans in hospital say the only shooting came from the Marines.

Here's the BBC story. Here's the NYT one (2nd story in lineup on the World/Asia-Pacific page; not a top World story). Here's the Washington Post one (pA11).

An excerpt from a Jan. 3 AP story on CTV.ca:

NATO said Wednesday that it killed too many Afghan civilians during fighting last year against resurgent Taliban militants, but that the Western alliance was working to change that in 2007.

FWIW, these particular Marines weren't under NATO.

From the BBC:

Military strikes against Iran could speed Tehran's development of nuclear weapons, according to a UK think tank.

A report by the Oxford Research Group says military action could lead Iran to change the nature of its programme and quickly build a few nuclear arms.

Iran denies Western claims it is trying to build weapons, saying its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful.

The study comes as the UN nuclear watchdog is set to discuss the nuclear programmes of Iran and North Korea.

In February, Iran ignored a deadline set by the UN Security Council to stop enriching uranium.

A report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran was instead expanding the programme.

The Beeb also has a feature: Iran: Can a military strike work?