Al Arabiya: "First, we are as ‘Saudi-owned’ as CNN is ‘American-owned’... & 'we are sorry'

So this guy from Al Arabiya  (Faisal Abbas, formerly of Saudi al Sharq al Awsat and Hariri's Future TV) writes this long 'apology' punctuated by a thousand 'now', 'first', 'the point is' & 'the fact is' to say what exactly? That Saudi Arabia is (unlike Syria) NOT 'autocratic & secretive', that Al Arabiya is a paragon of free editorship and commentary, that Asa'ad Abou Khalil is an 'Iranian & Syrian' intelligence operative and that Al Akhbar serves an 'Iranian & Syrian agenda ... But did we sense a hint as (AngryArab commented) of distancing himself from the laughable leaks & documents?

"...  The whole reason for this long introduction is to apologize to some of our critics for a major disappointment which I am about to bestow about them. .....  I truly am very sorry for what I am about to say.
Sadly, the fact is that there is simply no “agenda” apart from doing our best to report the news as accurately and professionally as possible, nor are there any secret labs were documents are fabricated at Al Arabiya.
We also didn’t “have” to publish the recent leaked security files; it was purely an editorial decision which was reached after weeks of verification and cross-checking (LOOL); this decision was a collective one.
Now, there are those who make that rather simplistic assumption that since Saudi Arabia -- like most countries around the world -- is against the slaughtering of the Syrian people and Al Arabiya is ‘Saudi-owned’; then the channel by default “must” have an agenda against Assad. (Please stop, O al Arabiya, al Sharq al Awsat and FUTURE TV guru)
First, we are as ‘Saudi-owned’ as CNN is ‘American-owned’;....
Now, I don’t care what inter-galactic conspiracy Assad wants the world to believe is happening; the reality is that there are between 28 thousand and 36 thousand reported deaths since the Syrian crisis erupted;....
What are we supposed to do? ....
Now, let us go over the fact relating to the documents which we have been exposing for the past two weeks.
First, we did clarify that these documents were obtained from opposition sources; as professional journalists, we obviously knew that this naturally means that they (our sources) may have been selective....
Then, we did mention upfront that our sources declined to inform us how they managed to obtained these highly confidential files.
We also did declare that we have spent a long time verifying these documents and fact-checking them (enough already!);...
Now as for getting other sources to confirm authenticity; many people – especially those dreamy bloggers who think they can do a better job from the comfort of their own home – tend to forget that this is a crisis happening in a country ruled by one of the most secretive and autocratic regimes in the whole world. ..."