Your article says "Samples from soil and victim's clothing provide independent confirmation that illegal weapon was used against civilians and opposition fighters" and "It means independent British confirmation that one of the cruellest of illegal weapons was unleashed against civilians and opposition fighters." But it only has this fact, "Samples collected from the clothes of a victim of the 21 August attack in Damascus that killed hundreds of men, women and children were tested positive"
So wouldn't a more accurate statement be that civilians and opposition fighters were exposed to sarin nerve agent as opposed to it being "used against" and "unleashed' which conveys the idea that Syria;'s government used it and doesn't make clear to readers that we don't know that. We don't know who exposed them to this, if it was rebels by accident or on purpose. Because we know the UN was not mandated to find out who was behind it: http://youtu.be/A4xYOuksYvI
Your own article says "British confirmation that sarin was used, probably by Assad forces, will reinforce the case for missile strikes." If it was "probably" by Assad forces then you don't know for sure so you shouldn't give an impression that it is a known fact at the top of the article. Assad forces were winning, what is the logical reason for them to possibly give a pretext for getting attacked?
Also, how would such a thing "reinforce the case for missile strikes" when such a thing is an illegal act? Using this as a pretext for striking them is a violation of international law if the UN Security Council doesn't authorize it. Have you ever clearly reported to your readers that Obama's plan to attack is illegal? Would you ever report that poor reporting reinforces the case for blowing up the building you work in? (That of course is an hypothetical example and is in no way a threat because poor reporting in no way reinforces a case for carrying out a criminal attack against your news organization.)
Obama is already in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter for making threats to use force against Syria. Have you ever clearly reported that to your readers that Obama's threats are illegal? "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
There is a pattern in the media of suppressing the unlawful nature of military actions by Western powers. There was a pattern of the media refusing to report that President Bush's plan to attack Iraq was illegal. And I have yet to see a major media outlet report that Bush's excuse, an excuse he as given several times, is a flat out lie. Bush claimed Saddam didn't allow the inspectors in! I think you should have be able to determine that is a falsehood: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni8hR-x2S9I&feature=share&list=PLfrlsC1yJ2dQUb-sj-DxuDLdPtiMrKjZ4 See @ :22 for provable lie. Major media have played along with the lies used to sell and justify these illegal wars.