I've seen many, many comments over the last couple of years at the Telegraph, Spectator, Commentator and Biased BBC (among others), worded with varying degrees of strength, alleging that the BBC is siding with those who want the West to intervene in Syria on the side of the Syrian opposition.
The BBC News website isn't exactly helpingg to dispel such impressions with its latest Viewpoints article, What role should the US play in Syria?.
The first of its four contributors, Elizabeth O'Bagy, senior research analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, argues that the US should arm the Syrian opposition, specifically the "moderate" elements. The second contributor, Robert Danin, senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, also believes that "providing arms to Syria's rebels is necessary." The fourth contributor, Jeffrey White, defence fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, shares their opinion that "the rebels need military assistance now."
Only the third contributor, Aaron David Miller, vice-president of the Wilson Center, sounds a sceptical note, though he can hardly be described as a robust, counterbalancing voice to his three companions, given the cautious, analytical tone of his contribution.
Is this imbalance reflective of public opinion in the United States? Is it reflective of expert opinion in the United States?