Paradox of New York Times' coverage of Syria

"while others noted that previous rebel claims of territorial gains in Damascus had almost always turned out to be embellished or unfounded."  For the first time I see in the New York Times a (passing) reference to the lies, fabrications, and exaggerations by the armed rebel gangs in Syria.  But this is the problem: if the Times has belatedly noted this true aspect of rebel propaganda, how does it reconcile that with its total and complete reliance on rebel groups for its coverage on Syria.  Even its skype names and addresses of "activists" are obtained through the press media of those groups.  Who are you fooling?