From a Tunisian reader: " Hi As'ad,
Look at how much spin Anne Barnard fits into the first paragraph: "BEIRUT, Lebanon — Syrian government forces and Hezbollah guerrillas took control of most of the strategic crossroads town of Qusayr early on Wednesday, in a painful defeat for outgunned rebels that gave new momentum to the forces of President Bashar al-Assad and was likely to further dampen prospects for peace negotiations planned for this month." First she qualifies the Syrian regime's takeover as "most" when other reports, such as the WSJ, do not make that distinction, second the poor rebels suffered a "painful defeat" and they were, after all, "outgunned" (and Hamas isn't outgunned next to Israel?) and, lastly and most egregiously, a victory for the Syrian regime dampens peace prospects, whatever that means. The point is that the regime will find less reason to compromise feeling the wind behind its back, but if the rebels had won surely they'd be in the same position. But rebel victories are never termed to hinder a peace compromise, and here Bernard has adopted the presumption of American goals: Rebel victories do not encumber a peaceful resolution since the downfall of the regime is the ultimate peace in American eyes. That's an unexamined assumption that Bernard, intentionally or not, sneaks in and constitutes editorializing. Quiet a feat for the first paragraph. "