I think that's possibly true to an extent, as is the reverse. There's plenty of evidence based rebuttal of what these folks post on their blogs etc, but ultimately, as with many things, it's like wrestling with a pig. There's almost never any recognition "actually, I got that one wrong, it wasn't the same child at all" (or whatever). They either just move on, or double down.
It's why I'm so disappointed to the extent of extreme irritation by them. As you say sceptical analysis or discussion of whatever subject would benefit us all, but what we've got is two sides who just espouse their views, seeking to justify their views, rather than start with what they or we know, and then take it to wherever is goes.
It's like, say, the White helmets. They are funded by the UK, US etc. So it's reasonable to ask "are they just western agents, doing the bidding of the UK, US etc. in terms of propaganda"? It's also reasonable to ask "Does the West genuinely want to avoid some deaths that can be avoided, and does it make sense to help volunteers with funding and equipment to carry out rescues etc"?
What we get is "we know the White helmets are American collaborators and they don't rescue people, they just fake it for propaganda purposes" or "we know the Russians and Syria are desperate to discredit the White helmets, so you can't listen to any claims about fakery, because it's just propaganda aimed at discrediting the west"
Neither of those lines is at all likely to be the whole truth, but that's the starting point we are presented with. It would seem possible, if not highly probable that there's a grey line where they do a great deal of genuine rescuing and stuff, but also that as they are basically a disparate group of civilians, from doctors and nurses, to mechanics and shopkeepers, that some will have agendas, some will seek to profit, some will seek to portray an angle...but it's less likely that they are all, somehow a highly organised and disciplined western implanted set of PR operators and media manipulators.
But with such entrenched starting positions, I am left unable to get a clear picture of where the truth lies.
Your bloggers don't help, at all. They feed off a reasonably wide dislike and distaste for the West engaging in all these wars and conflicts, but just don't look sceptically at the big picture, which has to include Syria, Russia etc. involvement in those same conflicts. I nthat sense, I don't think they add anything other than fog (as opposed to what you call "objective assessment ") and food for conspiracy theorists and twitter bells.