How the New York Times covers repression in Saudi Arabia (versus how it covers Syria)

Let us start with this:  "Videos posted on social networking sites on Tuesday night showed an avenue filled with rows of chanting mourners. Other videos showed youths throwing incendiary devices at what appeared to be a police car, and rocks at a government building."  In other words, they cover both videos showing mourners and others showing "violence" against the Saudi security forces.  I never recall reading in the New York Times that videos on Youtube show Syrian armed groups firing rockets and bombs as targets.  But "incendiary devices" and rocks are more noteworthy for the Times.  And how did the reporter know that he saw those devices?  And then they report this:  "Activists said the man, Muhammed el-Filfil, had been protesting the shooting and arrest on Sunday by government security forces of a prominent Shiite cleric in the Qatif region. Mr. Filfil was one of at least two people killed when security forces fired live ammunition at the protesters in the village of Awamiya, the activists said. A government official denied that any such clash had occurred."  Notice that they cover both the activists and their account and then they make a point to cover the government point of view.  The reporter who resides in Cairo did not bother to add the typical disclaimer that the paper writes about Syria, which obviously applies to Saudi Arabia: that the government restricts the entry and movement of journalists and that it is impossible to verify the information (when the Times report that, it then settles on the account of the armed activists).    And here they also go out of their way to incorporate the government story--something they never do in Syria:  "There were conflicting accounts about how he was injured, with the government asserting that he was shot during an exchange of gunfire as he resisted arrest. Mr. Nimr’s brother told Reuters the cleric was detained while driving from a farm to his house."   The story then ends with an absurd rehash of a government claim--something the Times never does in the case of Syria.