So who is this “JCL” editor who decides to prejudice Assad’s case more than
the original article by inserting that belittling comment in the lead paragraph
before the actual report:  “...decided to try to quell dissent with honey rather
than vinegar.” ???
  What good does it do to start off by inserting a knife,  rather than to simply
begin in a noncommittal way with the mere facts?  Assad decided to try
something other than violent confrontation.  Maybe it will work.  Maybe it won’t
work.  But it’s a notable difference from Gadhafi, isn’t it?  It’s a more intelligent
effort, isn’t it?  It might serve as a step toward a less murderous direction? 
Maybe he actually hopes to avoid mayhem? 
  Why not give it a chance and see what happens?  Why up the anti at the very
beginning by using snide prejudgment?
  We do this kind of thing consistently, again and again, as though we (western
press in general) are unconscious of our bias and mindlessly slant moderation
toward violence by using veiled scorn—as if we are so stupid we don’t even
realize that we just might be wrong by saying (before results are in, and even if
it’s none of our immediate business): “Of course you can’t believe this guy; of
course he doesn’t mean what he says, of course he’s a liar.”
  Maybe he is—but why can’t we wait and see?  Why do we consider it “naive”
to hope for change in the direction of moderation?
  The way our “media” increase our prejudices is so conspicuous it would be
laughable if it didn’t make other people hate us.

The reason the Syrian president is waiting until next week to eliminate the 48-year-old state-of-emergency, is that it has been so long, everyone has forgotten what color to put on the national emergency charts to indicate a state of non-emergency.