As a regular reader of BBC News, I’ve noticed that the BBC covers more of the Syrian conflict than any other news source I regularly see. Maybe because the UK is geographically closer to the Middle East, it has more information about it. Nonetheless, BBC offers a variety of articles, analyses, and sources for readers to understand the “Syrian Conflict.” BBC News does not just report the facts everyday, but also summarizes the news, helping the reader understand it more. 

Sources like Vice News differ from the BBC in the way they present information about on going news. Vice seems to report news in more interesting and different ways, i.e. interviews, photo series, and stories on individuals.

BBC reports news everyday on Syria, and is constantly updating their stories, which makes it drastically different than getting a story from a newspaper like Newsweek or magazine like TIME.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20171828

Syria conflict: Will US succeed in reshaping opposition?

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s call for a new Syrian opposition more representative of those fighting on the frontlines rather than exiles signals the most forceful attempt yet by Washington to reshape the fragmented Syrian opposition.

The goal is to create a new political body that could not just provide a political dimension in the ongoing struggle, but one that could potentially offer an alternative leadership to that of the Assad regime, at least for a transitional period.

The US push is linked to a crucial meeting of opposition figures in Doha next week.

This gathering, under Saudi auspices, promises to mark the effective demise of the Syrian National Council (SNC), once the great hope of Western opponents of the Syrian regime.

This body was described by Mrs Clinton as one that could “no longer be viewed as the visible leader of the opposition”. It was too fragmented; too heavily based upon exiles and unwilling or unable to attract support from crucial minority groups inside Syria.

Fragmentation fears

The nature and cohesion of the Syrian opposition is crucial for a number of reasons.

At the most basic level, Western governments who oppose the Assad regime need a single address for their diplomatic contacts.

The struggle on the ground in Syria shows no sign of ending. Indeed, well-informed observers fear that the most likely outcome now is a protracted civil war which could take on an ever more sectarian dimension.

The recent upsurge of fighting between Kurdish elements and Arab rebel forces in northern Syria is a portent of what might be to come.

Fears about the eventual break-up of Syria or the spillover of the conflict into other countries - notably Lebanon and Iraq - are very real.

So too are concerns that - amidst the chaos - Jihadist groups are prospering and the risk of the conflict acting as a magnet for such elements only grows over time.

This general chaos together with the Jihadist threat is part of the reason that, up to now, the US in particular has been very reluctant to arm the Syrian opposition.

This might not necessarily change overnight, but an effective and inclusive opposition body with real links on the ground and a sense of a political future might prompt a change of US policy over time.

High stakes

The record of outside engagement with the Syrian opposition has been mixed.

From the outset there was limited knowledge and perhaps a failure to appreciate the resilience of the Assad regime.

Loose diplomatic gatherings like Friends of Syria grouping achieved little.

The Turkey-based SNC was a truly national body in name only. Ankara, Washington and the Gulf capitals were not always on the same page. Competition for influence over a post-Assad Syria is already under way.

So could the body that emerges from the Doha meeting be any different?

US diplomatic muscle is important but probably not decisive. How far representatives of those on the ground in Syria will be able to participate is still unclear.

But the stakes are enormous. Post-Assad chaos in Syria could spread to engulf the whole region.

An effective Syrian opposition on its own will not prevent this. But it is a vital element if such a scenario is to be avoided.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20588698

Obama to Syria: Using chemical weapons ‘unacceptable’

3 December 2012 Last updated at 17:32 ET

US President Barack Obama has said use of chemical weapons by Syria’s regime would be “totally unacceptable”, saying there “will be consequences” if Bashar al-Assad chooses to deploy them.

Speaking at the National Defense Museum in Washington, DC, Mr Obama said: “We simply cannot allow the 21st Century to be darkened by the worst weapons of the 20th Century.”

On Monday, the US said it feared Syrian President Assad might resort to using chemical weapons against his people. Meanwhile, the United Nations said it would withdraw all non-essential staff out of the country.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20590129

Syria crisis: Nato approves Patriots for Turkey

4 December 2012 Last updated at 13:31 ET

“In a statement, Nato said it had “agreed to augment Turkey’s air defence capabilities in order to defend the population and territory of Turkey and to contribute to the de-escalation of the crisis along the alliance’s border”.

Recent intelligence assessments have indicated Damascus is contemplating using ballistic missiles, potentially armed with chemical warheads.”

“Syria is believed to hold chemical weapons - including mustard gas and sarin, a highly toxic nerve agent - at dozens of sites around the country.

The CIA has said those weapons “can be delivered by aircraft, ballistic missile and artillery rockets”.

President Obama has previously warned President Assad he would face “consequences” if he used chemical weapons against his people.

A Nato team has already visited a number of sites in Turkey in preparation for the deployment of Patriot batteries, which could be used to shoot down any Syrian missiles or warplanes that stray over the border.

But analysts say any deployment - possibly supplied by the US, Germany or the Netherlands - could take weeks.”

By Katie Baker

September 30, 2012

Newsweek does not deliver a full-length article; instead another large picture and text that fills less than 1/4 of the page. What is given is bare: a stalemate, more rebel attacks, and more refugees, namely from Turkey.

So I will take the time to analyze the other news sources I have done.

Raquel’s VICE discusses more about America’s involvement.Time Magazinefocuses more on updating rather than covering the whole story up to that point.Newsweek,thus far, has not brought up America yet, andTime Magazinefor the most part has done so as well.Timeis also good at keeping the story brief and yet intriguing, butNewsweek’s updates are tiny. Still, however, they mention a few crucial points.

Magazines specialize in that; keeping things intriguing without links. They still have access to photos, quotes, and charts. It all gets wrapped in a nice package at the end, as well.