Why does the New York Times bother covering Syria?

I mean, there is no need to cover Syria in the Times. There is a self-declared opposition Army in Syria, and you have three governments (Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Libya) who have pledged to arm and finance the rebel gangs and groups, and yet the New York Times want to convince readers that the account by Ikhwan exile groups that the Syrian regime kills Syrian people (which it does), and also kills its own members.  So basically, the New York Times should just state that every bullet and every bomb in Syria is fired by members of the Syrian regime and that the men of the Free Syrian Army only use roses in their battles.  Look at this absurd account:  "Some civilians blamed the government. One resident said worshipers, who had been planning to join antigovernment protests, were targeted, while some opposition activists said the Syrian government had itself attacked security forces to make the uprising, which began as a broad-based protest movement, look as if it were devolving into violent extremism."  But yesterday, a man with an explosive belt detonated himself.  Now he can't be a Syrian Ba`thist, and he can't be a secular liberals (who are according to Western media the bulk of Syrian opposition), so to which group does he belong one wonders?  Let me guess.  Could he be a Tamil Tiger?  It is possible.  Just rely on the theories of the New York Times.