The news that Obama can't push China around is the story of the day. The mammograms debate rumbles on, more from the weird world of Michael Jackson, carbon offsetting is a scam and Macbeth, the opera, featuring baboons!

All the papers examine the diplomatic machinations of Obama's trip to China. Some flag it up with the warning that it's analysis, others report it as straight news. Meanwhile the we-hate-Goldman Sachs meme may be slowing - only the New York Times reports their latest attempt at being nice. The Post and the News illustrate their differences today; despite being direct competitors the Post goes with salacious details from a suicide related to Michael Jackson, while the News campaigns for tighter gun control on the back of its own story. Click away!

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: reports that China, because it essentially owns America now, is less willing to cede in negotiations with Obama. The story is illustrated with an exceedingly brown picture. Across the front page is news that New York will get much stricter on DWI cases, and that new laws are expected to pass quickly. In an effort to cover all the bases in a complex issue, two different pieces about the story that fewer women need mammograms are given equal space. Goldman Sachs' latest attempt to make us think they're nice is handled with a lot less scorn here than elsewhere and, as if to underline the ridiculousness of the situation, runs next to a piece about beleaguered people in Philadelphia relying on a scheme to keep their homes. Finally there's the greenwashing news that carbon offsets for flights don't do anything to reduce emissions.

The Washington Post: have the same news that China is taking a less conciliatory line with President Obama - because they can. It runs next to an exclusive about further corruption in Afghanistan; two stories that will doubtless give the White House pause. A reporter gets some poetic, weather-describing tendencies out of his system in an interview with the mother of a nine-year-old boy who was shot and killed over the weekend. Also, the rule used to be that numbers one to nine were spelled out in words and 10 upwards were in numerals. Has this changed, or did the Washington Post never follow this? There's a nice piece of historical context on the mammograms debate, and a piece that points out that, despite talk of a recovery, there aren't so many jobs.

The LA Times: reports that the Californian budget is still in trouble, but that the housing price in the south of the state, one of the hardest hit, is recovering. The DA wants to ruin everyone's fun by targeting medical marijuana users and the mammograms debate may affect healthcare reform. There's a piece here about Afghan corruption, without the exclusive hook the Washington Post has today. And Botswana has an opera, Macbeth featuring baboons, that sounds a lot more fun than most.

The Wall Street Journal: has a rich, full story about the wars to buy the British chocolate maker Cadbury. Hershey is plotting, apparently. As the latter is the worst chocolate in the world, and the former the best, let's hope they don't literally merge. Obama's difficulties in China make the front, as does an intriguing proposal to increase phone charges to pay for widespread broadband access. As we move towards the second half of the week, or 'fun time' as the WSJ knows it, the feature is about mega-marathoners.

The New York Post: just when you think you're out of the strange world of Michael Jackson, they pull you right back in. The Michael Goodwin column splashed on the left side of the page seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with this headline.

The Daily News: is running a good, old-fashioned local campaign against gun crime.

Tulsa World: reports that Oklahoma is ranked 49th in overall health. To illustrate that story they run a picture many New Yorkers would title 'breakfast'.

Toronto Sun: who knew Canadians could be so sensationalist? This is the opposite of earnest.