Decisions, Decisions The unrest in Syria has been an ongoing internal fight for political freedom and an end to the rule of autocracy that has gone from a peaceful civilian resistance in response to corruption, injustices, and the rule of Bashar al-Assad into a bloody civil warfare. Although the uprisings in Syria have been internal, many inciting news sources from all over the world have had daily coverage of this violent nation that is on the verge of either destruction or liberation; do we just sit and watch or take action? News coverage of unrest in Syria and the national intervention is a never ending cycle of controversy that has spun into whelms of different viewpoints. New coverage throughout has been of varying biases that run along the lines of staying out of Syria’s uprising and bloodshed because it could lead to much worse things for their country and ours as well, and also intervening and helping out Syria militarily or humanitarianly. American news coverage tended to be more direct and on the side of the U.S and pro-democracy intervening as opposed to the international articles such as Al Jazeera and The Guardian who were much more indirect in their view and hinted at not intervention by their objection to counterarguments. The Washington Post and Chicago Tribune tended to use some similar language and reasoning to develop their argument such as an appeal to pathos and direct statements to complement their stance as pro- intervention. Both American and International sources covered their intervention articles in a similar fashion, but comprised them in such a manipulative yet very different way. The American new sources, Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune, were both prominently bias towards the intervention of outside sources in Syria with the use of very harsh diction and an appeal to pathos along with the use of a narrow list of options that seemed as if it was the last resort to liberation in Syria. The first article presented by The Washington Post, “Syria’s Carnage Puts Arab Leaders on Horns of Dilemma”, starts off with the measureable changes that the Middle East has underwent in the past year and then goes on to say, “The talk of intervention, which may be taken up formally by the Arab League at a meeting this weekend, reflects a sense of desperation” (Board). Starting off the article, the Editorial Board critiques the Arab League’s meeting over intervention as a condition of being desperate and furthers The Washington Post bias on the border of pro or anti- intervention. As the article continues, they begin to develop distaste to the president of Syria, ‘Mr. Assad’ (Board). The harsh tone as they continue their explanation of how, “Mr. Assad, predictably, never took any meaningful steps; instead he has on killing people at a shocking pace” (Board). This begins The Washington Post’s bias towards intervening by dehumanizing President Assad and making sure the audience knows what he has committed instead of doing anything ‘meaningful’. The bias continues down the article after explaining the Arab League’s plan and how it will be shared by NATO, “The western allies have stood back from the carnage in Syria, even while calling for the end of the Assad regime” (Board). The harsh diction such as ‘carnage’, which relates back to the title, gives the condition in Syria a more murderous tone while the overall bias is evident when they characterize the western allies as being in hiding and a sense of laziness as they continually critique the Assad Regime instead of actually taking a stand to this ‘carnage’. Finally concluding the article is another attack at the western powers as they sit back while the conditions in Syria spiral down even more, “If the organization now reaches a dead end, outside powers will have to consider new measures, in collaboration with the Arabs. Standing by while the bloodshed goes on should not be of the options.” (Board). The Washington Post makes it seem like intervention is