The PR/propaganda/news outfits for both sides seem quite well funded, but I think the average American would be more comfortable with the Azerbaijani version. It is obviously run by either an Israeli or American PR firm. The money spent on it must be impressive. The Armenian side seems to be funded by the prosperous diaspora community, and they probably get more bang for their buck directly hiring native English speaking Armenians. Their press is more clumsy, but I'd guess it's a lot cheaper. For the dozen or so people world wide who are interested in the subject, the quantity and quality of the two sides versions are very compatible.
In the July 19 version of the "Voice of Russia" UK edition, Dr Marcus Papadopoulos did an impressive job of explaining "Georgia's geo-political significance." According to the good Dr, the US interest in Georgia is two-fold: It is on the path of the Nabucco pipeline taking Azerbaijani oil to European markets through Turkey, and it's location offers a excellent means of containing Russia from the prized Middle Eastern Oil. He mentions twice that this tiny country has the potential to bring Russia and the USA into direct conflict.
Sakashvilli tried it in 2008, but it seemed that since Turkey would have had to do most of the fighting, they got cold feet and wouldn't allow the US fleet into the Black Sea. The whole operation went sideways, and our grand leaders decided to nuke Lehman Brothers instead of the Russians. The rest is history.