Strikes me that what's going on here is called spin. And they're both doing it.

People laud politicians when they give passionate speeches advocating one side of the story when running for office and then expect them to stop and give just the truth after they're installed. I think what's dangerous is when people chose the passionate advocacy in their journalism, too.

Which brings to mind, to anyone who has read long term on the Syria issue and on Russia, it becomes clear that one of the main reasons Putin has held fast in support of Assad is a fear of growth of Islamic militants. Despite a lot of blogosphere spin that the U.S. is the most deranged country about "al Qaeda," he and Russia have that syndrome much worse than the U.S. does. And in opposition to American belief (fairy tale-ish sometimes) that just setting up societies to self-determine, you won't tend to get Al Qaeda type movements and moderation will eventually win over (we're still trying that theory in Afghanistan, BTW,) Putin tends to believe in ruthlessly strong dictator or strongman types keeping a lid on that being the only way, especially in Islamic areas. And not without reason. See Chechyna. See the Belsan massacre. See bombs in the Moscow subway and etc. Does anyone really believe that he favors the Orthodox church almost as a sort of state religion because he's a true believer in his heart? Well maybe George Bush.