Scandalous: How Anne Barnard covers Syria from her office in Beirut, or propaganda in its most crude form

So I was reading on Twitter the other day, and out of the blue I noticed that Thomas Pierret (a specialist on Syria who is an intense and dogmatic advocate of the Free Syrian Army and of Islamist groups in Syria) was urging Anne Barnard to cover the atrocities by the regime (according to him) in Saraqib.  I watched as Anne Barnard asked him for more details.  I watched then as Pierret provided her with Syrian rebel links and video.  I did not think much of the matter, until two days later when I read a whole long article by Barnard making exactly the point the Pierret was making to her in the tweets (I went back and found that the tweets were not there anymore).  And the result is one of the worst works by Barnard on Syria, and believe me that is with strong competition by herself in the most unprofessional work on covering a foreign country (from another foreign country, her one day trips Syria notwithstanding).   So this entire article was written at the urging of a champion of the Free Syrian Army. Imagine: if a champion of the Syrian regime urged her on twitter to write a story about the massacres by the Syrian rebels and sent her a few links and videos and put her in touch with "contacts" via twitter and phone to write a story. Do you think that she would do that? But let us see what she wrote.  She begins by talking about Saraqib (which is exactly what Pierret told her to do) and she provides no evidence for the claims EXCEPT unsubstantiated claims by Syrian rebels themselves, and their lobbyists in the West.  All the links that she provides in her article are Syrian rebel links by the way.  And then she parrots, as she always does, the words and terminology of the rebels: "Such attacks — from airspace that American warplanes now enter at will — have fueled anger at the United States among opponents of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who wonder why the Americans are leading the fight against the Islamic State but give free hand to a dictator whose fight to remain in power has left as many as 200,000 of his own people dead."  Would Barnad dares call the Saudi King "dictator"?  But lest you think that her entire article was based on links and rumors and FSA propaganda statements, she gives you sources here:  "The United States’ focus on the Islamic State has given cover to Syrian forces, they say."    Is this journalism? For those who teach in college, would you allow your students to write papers citing followers on Twitter or "they say"?  She then makes a claim that she never ever substantiated but has been peddled by FSA:  "The Syrian government had long focused its attacks on insurgents other than the Islamic State".  Who said that and what is the evidence?  In fact, there were times when the regime bombed ISIS and she among others reported the story as: regime dropped bombs on Sunni civilians.  So damned either way.  But then she gives us a name: "Suhail, a fighter with the Free Syrian Army".  How did you find this fighter, Ms. Barnard? Was he at a cafe in Beirut? And who still speaks about the Free Syrian Army except you?  Really? Even Syrian exile opposition does not take this militia seriously but you still need to talk about FSA to fit your propaganda narrative.  But then she does something cute: she finds you someone who is a Christian and who opposes the government just as she in the past found someone who is Alawite and against the regime (and all those people, Ms. Barnard: who do you find them? Just merely by references from your contacts with FSA or with people on Twitter?):  "Nadeen, a Syrian Christian who opposes the government and lives in the government-held section of divided Aleppo".  What is your point here, Ms. Barnard? That Christians are now for ISIS, Nusrah, and FSA? Is that your point by this token Christian? Is this like having token blacks on Fox News to make a point against Obama?  She then cutely insert a justification for the alliance between her Free Syrian Army favorites and Al-Qa`idah--AL-QA`IDAH, for potato's sake:  "Nusra Front, the Qaeda affiliate in Syria that is viewed as an ally, at least tactically, by many rebel groups, including some nominally allied with the West."  Notice how her entire narrative is drawn from the propaganda talking points of her FSA heroes.   Lastly: notice that she has a long article about a raging conflict and NOT ONE SINGLE WORD from the other side of the conflict.  Imagine if she were to write an article about the Arab-Israeli conflict but she talks to one side only.  Imagine the reaction.  This is the worst example of journalism that I have seen in a long time.