For example, lazy Western reporting on the Arab world (taken verbatim from Qatari regime and Saudi regime Arab media) by Western reporters who can't read or understand Arabic presented a purely sectarian view of Arab public opinion: that all Sunnis support Syrian rebels and that all Shi`ites support Syrian regime. Of course, the situation is far more complex. Look at the Arab world today. Not one capital witnessed a demonstration in support of East Aleppo and their rebels anywhere (other than the 50-member protest by Islamists in Amman and the few children that Islamists in Gaza paraded before the cameras). Of course, it does not mean that Arab public opinion is supportive of the Syrian regime. Most likely, Arab public opinion is sick and tired of all sides in Syria. But the fact that there is a huge gap between the (permitted) Arab reactions on social media in support of the rebels and the absence of street reactions tell you that part of the social media noise is government-generated. That does not mean that there are no real voices in support of rebels or in support of the regime in social media but Gulf regimes now own the bulk of social media just as they own Arab media. Look at (Sunni) Jordan: there are divisions among the public there over Syria (read here), and this explains why the royal buffoon in Amman sounds one thing in English and another in Arabic (just like his lying deceiving father). If there is accountability for Western media, someone would fire the entire body of Western correspondents in Beirut. What a lousy job they have done.