Is Martin Chulov of the Guardian making things up now?

Martin Chulov basically parrots March 14 propagandists in Lebanon but this is rather fabricated: no mainstream media in Lebanon, not even Hariri media, reported this.  He may have picked it up from sleazy Hariri websites although I have not seen it.  Of course, Hariri websites are the most credible on Hizbullah, just as Iranian media are credible about developments in Syria.  Chulov wrote:  "reminders of what might lay ahead resurfaced as Lebanese media carried reports of Hezbollah ordering thousands of its members to switch off their phones and report to fighting positions."  So Hizbullah members had their phones on throughout this crisis until somebody alerted them to switch them off?  But Chulov thinks he is being cute when he cites Walid Jumbat without naming him:  ""This is a very big decision for Hezbollah – make that Iran," said a Lebanese political leader who did not want to be named. "They want to create the impression that it's all on the line for the Americans. But it's bluff at this point. A game with very high stakes.""  What I like (or dislike as the case may be) about the Syrian crisis is that the differences in the quality of reporting between the Guardian and the New York Times vanished.