Almost 10 years after the attack on World Trade Center Sept. 11 2001, Osama bin Laden was shot and killed on May 2 2011 in Pakistan. How was this event framed by the media with regards to the global war on terror? This study compares two different American newspapers – the New York Times and the New York Daily News – and how they framed the war on terrorism in the Middle East from May 2 to May 15 2011. By analyzing the framing in a perspective of the four functions of framing theory: define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgments and suggest remedies, we found considerable differences in each papers frames. Through a qualitative text analysis of the opinion pages in these two newspapers, using three themes as a base, we found a number of differences. While the New York Times contained a form of open discussion about problems and remedies, New York Daily News takes an emotional and moral approach. These differences in content may affect the opinions of the readers. We speculate that the more open and suggestive nature of the New York Times, also opens the minds of the readers enabling them to form opinions in a liberated sense. Thus the more closed, emotional and moral nature of the New York Daily News may have greater impact on an individual’s ability to form its own opinions and moral values.