The resignation of Mu`adh Al-Khatib: how the New York Times is unreliable in reporting on Syria

This is such a second hand article about the Syrian opposition.  The lack of language skills among New York Times correspondents (I know that the New York Times, aware of the Anne Barnard's lack of Arabic, has appointed an American who studied Arabic as her deputy) shines through.  1) No, the resignation of Al-Khatib was not a protest at Saudi intervention, as was said in the article, but against Qatari intervention, as most Arabic sources reported already.  2) the article did not mention that Al-Khatib said that he reached his decision after seeking Gods intercession (Istikharah in Arabic) in his decision.  Look how Western media are at pains to conceal the clerical kooky background of Al-Khatib--a man who devoted his entire career to supporting Al-Asad dynasty and to warning of the dangers of Facebook and masturbation and admiring Saddam Husayn for "scaring Jews".  3) The article did not mention that whole section of the leadership of the Syrian National Coalition has also resigned in protest against the domination of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Do people remember early on in the Syrian uprising when I spoke about the domination of the Muslim Brotherhood, people were saying that the Muslim Brotherhood is merely a 10% of the exile opposition? Who was lying then, and now?