The daily propaganda dispatch by Anne Barnard on behalf of Syrian exile opposition

" particularly after an inflammatory opening speech by the foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, met with nearly unanimous disapproval."  1) what is inflammatory? Was the speech by Al-Jabra not inflammatory? Was the speech by Kerry and by Saud Al-Faysal not inflammatory? What is your criterion, Ms. Barnard? 2) "unanimous disapproval" by whom, Ms. Barnard? Does this not reveal yet again the narrow scope of your contact about Syria, confining yourself to Syrian and Lebanese March 14 movements and to Western diplomats? Do you think that this summarizes the world over? In fact, there was far more condemnation even among Syrian opposition people in social media for the speech by Jabra.  And Ms. Barnard did not note that the speech that really irritated young Arabs was the one by Saud Al-Faysal who spoke about "transition of power".  Even a well-known Kuwaiti reporter had to remind Al-Faysal on twitter that he has been in his position for 40 years straight.  But I like reading such reports in the Times. I like it better when reporters and correspondents of Western media don't even try to appear fair or dispassionate.  It makes the job of us critics of such media much easier.  There is no subtlety in such propaganda outlets anymore.