Select from the following: the army a) did know the Fort Hood shooter was radicalized, b) didn't know he was radicalized or c) kind of knew, through a third agency. Alternatively, ignore the whole intelligence mess and read about fishing.

The impression one gets going through the intelligence coverage today is that no-one — the agencies included — know what happened. The agencies seem to be furiously leaking in their own favour, and the papers are lapping it up. Really, all that is revealed is that it's incredibly complex and entirely understandable that Hasan wasn't apprehended for sending a few emails. But that's not a story. An intelligence failure that led to the deaths of 13 soldiers however, is. So we're in the strange position of one piece of evidence being interpreted two different ways and definitive reports in either direction. It is notable that the New York Times does not run anything on the topic today. Maybe they're taking the sensible route and waiting until the dust settles instead of peering blindly through it.

Disclosure: I freelance write and report for newspapers that are included in this roundup. Where there is a direct conflict of interest I will make it clear.

The New York Times: has a nice mix today. Mark Mazzetti has frankly been killing it of late. The latest investigation to feature his byline reveals that private army Blackwater, now rebranded as 'Xe' and its worst-person-in-the-world boss Erik Prince paid bribes to shut people up after they massacred 17 Iraqi civilians. Quadruple sourced no less! There's the shoo-in emotional tale and picture from the Fort Hood service yesterday, to which the paper sent big-gun political reporter Peter Baker. The picture is outstanding - and as everyone takes amazing photography in the Times for granted I'd like to commend Nicole Bengiveno by name. The story that two Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers, accused of fraud for their part in the financial crisis, here, gets some analysis for its potential implications for other nefarious banker-types, and runs above a story about Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's growing political skills. Meanwhile Supreme Court Justice, and first amendment protector, Anthony M. Kennedy forced a New York school to give him copy approval on an article the newspaper wrote about a talk he gave, and the New Museum faces a potential conflict of interest.

The Washington Post: the series leading up to the execution of the DC sniper reached its inevitable end when John Allen Muhammad was executed. The paper uses the closure to analyze the impact of the shootings too. They also use the Fort Hood service as a hook to look at the intelligence failures surrounding the shootings. Ben Bernanke is going to have to use the political skills the Times says he's developed - Chris Dodd wants to strip his institution of many powers, something no-one else picked up on the front page. There's been an interesting fragmenting of financial crisis coverage of late - as more and better stories emerge each paper is picking its own angle. The Post didn't want to get left without with an intelligence exclusive either - they report that a weakened Al-Qaeda now relies on the Taliban for protection. Frankly the war is so murky out there, and stories conflict so often, that I now take any reports from the region with a pinch of salt. And finally: Americans learning to live without cars.

The LA Times: uses a Reuters picture of the Fort Hood service, unlike the Times and Post who sent their own cameras. It is either very smart as most pictures will be pretty similar anyway, or a missed opportunity to showcase a fine LA Times photojournalist. They also look at the intelligence failures. There's a slightly old story about a hand-written note British Prime Minister Gordon Brown sent to the mother of a fallen soldier. He either misspelled the family's name, or has bad handwriting, depending who you believe. The real story, reported well here, is how the media and public turn on a beleaguered politician. The feature today looks at a couple in Iran over several years, some prison inmates prefer the more-comfortable death row and a panel approves fishing restrictions to help stocks recover.

The Wall Street Journal: leads with the news of the Bear Stearns acquittal and looks at the rebuilding of GM. Job seekers are trying to erase their criminal records, which is a nice counterpoint to yesterday's story about people living on severance. The paper also uses the word 'sextet' to subtly imply that six women did naughty things in a van in the 70s. (At least in my eyes.) They also take a wire picture of the Fort Hood service and dutifully run it on the front.

The New York Post: quotes directly from Obama's speech, which kind of sums up their straight-ahead coverage of the service. There's an interesting comparison here - the Post says a third government agency ignored warnings about Hasan, and cites the Wall Street Journal for this "stunning evidence" that adds to the storyline that Hasan could, should, have been stopped. The Journal takes that evidence for a more measured piece on intelligence infighting - the claim that I think the Post is referring to isn't mentioned until the fourth paragraph. Although it's all such a confusing mess of not-quite scoops about procedures that I have a headache trying to unravel it.

The Daily News: reports the same intelligence failures story in a slightly different way, adding to the confusion.

The Naples Daily News: I will buy and eat a hat if this story, about an eccentric Floridian who sent flowers to the Fort Hood shooter because he wanted to be a good Christian and love his enemy, is not picked up in the tabloids tomorrow. Unless he's too crazy to report on - which is a surprisingly fine line sometimes.

Asahi Shimbun: All I can tell you about this Tokyo paper's front page is that it doesn't cover Fort Hood, it looks cool and the columnist in the top left corner resembles a bearded Mr. Miyagi.