The US Media's Failure to Condemn Trump's Venezuela Attack as an Act of War
What would it take for the US media to frame Donald Trump's attack on Venezuela as an act of war? This isn't a rhetorical question; it's an actual inquiry that reveals a lot about how US media's default posture is state subservience and stenography.
Over the past few months, President Trump has committed several clear acts of war against Venezuela, including killing scores of its citizens, hijacking its ships, stealing its resources, issuing a naval blockade, and attacking its ports. Yet, none of these brazen aggressions have been referred to as acts of war, coups, or invasions in US mainstream media reporting.
Instead, the media has adopted language that is flattering and sanitizing to the administration. The Trump administration's unprovoked attack on Venezuela was framed as a "ratcheted up" pressure campaign by CBS News, a "special military operation" by CNN, and an "operation" by Fox News. Even when referring to the president's aggression against Ukraine, US media used language that accurately conveyed the nature of Putin's actions, such as "war" and "invasion," unlike Trump's Venezuela attack.
US media has been working overtime to provide pseudo-legal cover for Trump's aggression against Venezuela. The New York Times and CNN referred to "international sanctions" on Venezuelan oil in their reporting of Trump's hijacking and theft of Venezuelan oil ships, despite there being no international sanctions on the Venezuelan oil trade, only US sanctions.
The media's failure to use clear and martial language to describe Trump's actions is not just a matter of editorial discretion; it has significant implications for how we understand and report on international conflicts. By adopting the administration's framing, the media is effectively lending legitimacy to Trump's actions and sanitizing their impact.
If reporters wish to adopt the Trump government's framing, they should at least be open about it, disclose that they're happy to carry water for the administration in exchange for access and prestige, and lean into this role. If they're going to maintain the pretense of independence and journalistic skepticism, they should seek to complicate these euphemisms, ask themselves why they use a different set of terms when it comes to Russian military aggression, and stop lending the dictates of one out of 193 UN member states, much less one led by a man who openly talks about "taking oil," the sheen of ad hoc international legal authority.
The media's failure to condemn Trump's Venezuela attack as an act of war is not just a failure to report on international conflicts; it's a failure to uphold journalistic standards and defend democracy.
What would it take for the US media to frame Donald Trump's attack on Venezuela as an act of war? This isn't a rhetorical question; it's an actual inquiry that reveals a lot about how US media's default posture is state subservience and stenography.
Over the past few months, President Trump has committed several clear acts of war against Venezuela, including killing scores of its citizens, hijacking its ships, stealing its resources, issuing a naval blockade, and attacking its ports. Yet, none of these brazen aggressions have been referred to as acts of war, coups, or invasions in US mainstream media reporting.
Instead, the media has adopted language that is flattering and sanitizing to the administration. The Trump administration's unprovoked attack on Venezuela was framed as a "ratcheted up" pressure campaign by CBS News, a "special military operation" by CNN, and an "operation" by Fox News. Even when referring to the president's aggression against Ukraine, US media used language that accurately conveyed the nature of Putin's actions, such as "war" and "invasion," unlike Trump's Venezuela attack.
US media has been working overtime to provide pseudo-legal cover for Trump's aggression against Venezuela. The New York Times and CNN referred to "international sanctions" on Venezuelan oil in their reporting of Trump's hijacking and theft of Venezuelan oil ships, despite there being no international sanctions on the Venezuelan oil trade, only US sanctions.
The media's failure to use clear and martial language to describe Trump's actions is not just a matter of editorial discretion; it has significant implications for how we understand and report on international conflicts. By adopting the administration's framing, the media is effectively lending legitimacy to Trump's actions and sanitizing their impact.
If reporters wish to adopt the Trump government's framing, they should at least be open about it, disclose that they're happy to carry water for the administration in exchange for access and prestige, and lean into this role. If they're going to maintain the pretense of independence and journalistic skepticism, they should seek to complicate these euphemisms, ask themselves why they use a different set of terms when it comes to Russian military aggression, and stop lending the dictates of one out of 193 UN member states, much less one led by a man who openly talks about "taking oil," the sheen of ad hoc international legal authority.
The media's failure to condemn Trump's Venezuela attack as an act of war is not just a failure to report on international conflicts; it's a failure to uphold journalistic standards and defend democracy.
I think US media's reluctance to call out Trump's actions in Venezuela as an act of war is super telling 
. Like, what's going on here? Are they just too scared to rock the boat or do they have some kinda deal with the White House? 
It's not like this is a normal situation – we're talking about hundreds of civilians getting killed and ships being hijacked 
. But nope, instead of calling out the aggression, they're all like "oh, it's just pressure" or "it's a special military operation"... whatever that means 
. It's like they're trying to spin this as some kinda legitimate foreign policy move, but really it's just a bunch of bad stuff happening to Venezuela 
. The media needs to step up their game and start using real language instead of just parroting what the administration says 
. It's not that hard to do 
.
. Like, come on guys, you're essentially saying that the guy who just basically took over Venezuela by force is doing us a favor? "Ratcheted up" pressure campaign? Give me a break! It sounds like they're trying to whitewash his aggression 
. The media needs to stop playing nice and start using some real language, you know? Like, if Putin was doing the same thing, we'd be calling it what it is - war 
. But Trump gets a free pass because he's their BFF 
. It's really disappointing to see how much they've compromised on journalistic integrity 
. Can't they just report the facts without having to kiss up to the administration? 
What even is that? They need to get real and start using language that reflects what's really going on. I mean, if Putin did this, they'd be calling it out for what it is - war 
- they're just watering down the language like it's no big deal 
. It's all about keeping Trump happy and getting access to the White House, you know? I mean, if they were really that independent, they'd be screaming about this non-stop, not just sanitizing it with euphemisms 
. And what really gets me is how they're not even holding themselves accountable for perpetuating these lies 
. They need to own up to their complicity and start calling out Trump's aggression for what it is - a war crime 
. Otherwise, we'll just be stuck in this cycle of misinformation and propaganda, where the truth gets lost in the noise 
. We should be demanding more from our journalists - demanding that they hold power to account, and that they report on international conflicts with clarity and honesty.
. They're more focused on giving a platform for the administration than holding them accountable, which I think is a big part of why we don't see it referred to as an act of war 
.
. The fact that they're willing to whitewash one administration's actions but not another suggests a level of bias and compromise that's hard to ignore.
. But we should expect more from our journalists – especially when it comes to holding those in power accountable for their actions 
But no, instead of using language like "act of war" or "invasion", they're just talking about it being a "pressure campaign" or an "operation". It's like, hello? This isn't subtle, folks! 
I'm literally shocked by the US media's lack of spine when it comes to reporting on Trump's actions against Venezuela 
. It's like they're just waiting for permission from the administration to say anything critical 
.
.
I swear, the way they mix those flaky crusts with rich, velvety chocolate... it's like a party in your mouth. I went there last weekend and had my coffee (which was super overpriced but I don't judge) while browsing through Instagram on my phone. Oh man, have you seen their aesthetic? So Instagrammable 
