First, the article mentioned the Syrian opposition meeting in Istanbul, but says nothing about the deep conflicts, boycotts, and walk-outs by several elements (the article only mentions Kurdish representatives but implies that they were merely displeased and not that they in fact withdrew). It says nothing about the withdrawal by Haytham Al-Malih among others and the non-participation by the internal opposition groups (the coordinating committees). Second, it reported on visit by Asad to Baba Amr and said that it was not broadcast live. Yeah, it was not broadcast live, so? What is the point? Are the various videos that are produced and directed by exile Syrian opposition opposition broadcast live? What it the point, here, I don't get it. And then this: "“They bring people on buses to clap for him and say that he killed all the Free Syrian Army,” said a man living across the border in a Lebanese farmer’s house who identified himself as Abu Munzer." I know that the trend in Western media is to cite any view about Bashshar and his regime--no matter how silly--if the view is negative and critical. This is why the BBC aired repeatedly an accusation by a Syrian "activist"--of course--who claimed that Bashshar personally rapes children. So the writers of this article in the New York Times really believe that it is impossible to find tens of people inside Syria who are supportive of the regime? What about the hundreds of thousands of people who have demonstrated in support of the regime over the last few months? Were they also bused in? And where they injected with a chemical that made them look enthusiastic? Why can't the media report on the story without an obsession with the propaganda agenda? Even the columnist in the mouthpiece of Prince Khalid Bin Sultan, Al-Hayat, Jihad Al-Khazin said last week that perhaps one third of Syrians bitterly oppose Bashshar, and another third support him, and another third wait on the fence to see who will prevail. And then this: "A dozen Lebanese troops blocked visitors who wanted to see the border area, where the pop of gunfire could still be heard among apple orchards." Well, not true, Mr. and Ms. New York Times correspondents. Ghadi Francis of New TV visited the area (among others) and aired a report and found that the claim by Syrian National Council and their pro-Saudi allies in Lebanon are baseless. And then I ran into this: "said Edip Shisakli..." Edip? If you take two days of elementary Arabic, you would know that there is no "p" letter in Arabic. You would have known that it is Adib Shishakli, named after a well-known Syrian dictator. But Edip? Really, come on. I have better things to do than go through the anthology of errors, mistakes, fallacies, and blunders that is better known as the New York Times.