I ask because there's a bit of a moan piece in today's New York Times, entitled Who leaked to The Guardian and Why, with respect to reports that the new Obama administration is willing to talk to Hamas.
Most of the American newspapers are busily denying that there is any fundamental change in policy over Israel/Palestine - but the NYTimes piece also notes that it was the Guardian that broke the news that Hillary Clinton was to be the new Secretary of State and American publications spent a lot of time rubbishing that idea before it was officially announced and it turned out that the Guardian was right.
It's possible that the Guardian has developed close links with someone in the Obama administration, and if so, the next few years will be very interesting indeed. The characteristic of the last eight years has been the primacy of Murdoch's News International media (particularly Fox News), with American papers such as the Washington Post and New York Times being very careful not to upset the Bush Administration (most notably over Iraq). The Guardian by contrast takes a much more robust attitude in criticising governments both British and American (especially over Iraq), and if loads of Americans start to read it because they think they have an inside line to the Obama administration...
I very much hope that is the case. It will be nice to see a British publication really break through to become a major international player, and especially as the Guardian is independently owned by the Scott Trust Limited (formerly the Scott Trust) and is not dominated by a "tycoon" or single personality the way the rest of the British (and American) media is.