A matter of language in the New York Times

Of course, the Syrian regime deserves to be toppled.  Strong language is needed to denounce its brutal crackdown.  But as I read this article today by Anthony Shadid, I thought this: if he were to use the same denunciatory language against, say, an Israel brutal attack of an Arab city or camp, he would be fired on the spot.  Shadid--a smart guy--knows this, no doubt.  Does that mean that he should not use this language here? No.  What am I saying then?  I am saying that the New York Times is not a credible place to work and cover the Middle East.