As mainstream journalists acknowledge Douma attacks were likely "staged," the "humanitarian" Syria Regime-Change Network tries to save a sinking ship

@rts, with all due respect, I suggest a more cautious media hygiene strategy. You've previously posted that your preferred sources consist of:

A carefully crafted Twitter feed, mostly.

I generally avoid popular news sites; I get enough big media content clips via the No Agenda podcast just to know what the general population is sorrily subjecting itself to at the current moment. I also watch RT here and there and listen to the Sunday Wire with Patrick Henningsen who I'd peg roughly as an antiwar progressive type.

Ultimately it's been helpful in curating a collection of a few dozen journalists and cultural commentators I enjoy across the political spectrum, which I mostly access via Twitter. The curated network expands and contracts as new sources are referenced and tested and others reveal themselves as too sarcastic, too strictly performative, or as war apologists.

I don't need to feel like I "agree" with anyone more than about 40% of the time to keep their work on my radar. But if people just seem to be passing along knee-jerk received opinion memes associated with one party or another (as most do), I unfollow them.

Now more than ever, I demand nuance and imagination.

I understand the need to balance or filter out the warmongers, the incessant cheerleading for the worst excesses of capitalism, and the purblind false balances or selective omissions of mainstream sources.

And yet you've uncritically posted an article from a source with extremely questionable practices.

Your previously mentioned preferred news sources appear to be in a (PDF warning) constellation of self-referencing sites which are evidently amplifying and spreading disinformation/propaganda.

This portion is important in considering the sources and purposes of your preferred information cluster:

Support of Russian Government
Perhaps not surprising, considering the position of Russia
as an ally of the Syrian government (which views the WH
as assisting rebel forces), many of the domains in this
ecosystem are explicitly supportive of the Russian government.
Beyond RT and Sputnik, there are a few others sites
that focus on Russia-related topics from a point of view
favorable to the current regime: Russia-Insider.com,
Russophile.org (Russia News Now), and Fort-Russ.com. Many
of the other domains in Cluster B feature content supportive
of Russian geopolitical positions (abroad) and specifically
resistant to accusations that Russia had impact on
recent elections in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Shared Content across Ideologically Diverse Sites
But perhaps more interesting—or more impactful—than
the commonalities across domains are the differences
between them. Superficially, many of the domains in the
alternative media echo-system articulated here appear to
promote different ideologies. Consider a selection of domains
that appear in this echo-system—i.e. MintPressNews, JewWorldOrder,
LewRockwell, FreedomBunker, UprootedPalistinians,
TruePatriot, TheDailySheeple, TheFringeNews, Anonymous-News,
MakeWarHistory, ActivistPost, and TheRussophile. This list includes
websites with strong political themes reflecting distinct (and in some
cases, seemingly conflicting) ideologies—including antiimperialist left,
libertarian, conservative and alt-right; as well as other more niche
ideological leanings, including explicit anti-Semitism.
These websites are publishing the same content, but inside
very different wrappers. The content itself is not necessarily
tailored for each community
(though each domain may select the articles most likely to
resonate with its audience), but it is packaged up for them,
appearing within a domain that features other material that
may appeal to a reader’s existing ideology. The effects of
this kind of sharing may be to draw people from diverse,
niche, political and ideological communities into a set of
common narratives. We may think of these niche communities
as being isolated and distinct, but here they are connected
(in terms of content) with other quite different communities.

Emphasis mine.

The best propaganda delivers palatable half-truths, surrounding a core of masked agendas and biases intended to lead towards a conclusion favorable to the propagandist.

You can compare sets of opposed propaganda to determine where truth might exist, but it's never safe to accept a single bubble's content uncritically, or without consideration for whose agenda is being served.