Anne Barnard: new and improved

I never recommend to you Anne Barnard's articles about Syria (from Beirut, notwithstanding her one-day excursions to Damascus on rare occasions), but I do recommend this article by Ms. Barnard.  It is basically a repudiation of all her previous articles on Syria.  She now comes and tells us that everything that she ever wrote on Syria in the New York Times was false.  Every sentence in the article is a refutation of her own record:  "President Bashar al-Assad is staying in office, at least for now...They also contend that the American-backed exile opposition coalition that remains at the center of Washington’s policy has little relevance and no respect from combatants on either side...The critics say there is no indication that Mr. Assad is headed for imminent defeat; indeed, he seems to be increasing his grip on parts of the country...the tenacity of Mr. Assad’s government, the toothlessness of the exile coalition or Syrians’ growing misgivings over the ascendance of jihadist insurgents who have sought to impose religious rule on areas they control. "  Ms. Barnard: are you here informing your readers that everything that you have written prior today has been misleading and false at best, and that your own reporting was largely driven by the agenda of the Syrian exile groups with whom you spent too much skyping?   Ms. Barnard: do you remember when you used to treat the defection of an assistant to a clerk in a Syrian ministry as a sign that Bashshar is on his way out?  If only there is accountability in journalism like there is (or should be) in politics.