By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The U.S. media’s response to President Trump’s actions in Venezuela, including attacks and the kidnapping of its leader, has been surprisingly mild, avoiding terms like “act of war” and “coup.” Instead, mainstream outlets framed the events as “operations” or “pressure campaigns,” mirroring the administration’s language. This reluctance to use stronger terms, even in the face of blatant violations of international law, indicates a pattern of state subservience and sanitization in media coverage. The media’s choice of language, particularly in comparison to its coverage of Russia’s actions in Ukraine, reveals a willingness to adopt the administration’s preferred framing, effectively acting as stenographers to power.
Read the original article here
U.S. Media Refuses to Call Trump’s Venezuela Attack an Act of War
Let’s be frank, the situation in Venezuela, particularly the actions attributed to forces aligned with the former administration, presents a disturbing picture that the U.S. media, or perhaps “propaganda organizations” as some might put it, has largely failed to accurately portray. If a foreign power were to conduct a similar operation against the U.S., kidnapping our President, the response would undoubtedly be labeled as an act of war, and a retaliatory one at that. Yet, the media seems hesitant to apply the same standard when the roles are reversed. It’s like the concept of the “fourth estate” – a check on power – is a long-dead concept in this country.
The bombing of vessels, the incursion into a sovereign nation, and the abduction of a head of state and his wife, all smack of military aggression, a stark reality often downplayed or cleverly reframed. The official narrative often frames these events as liberation or “special operations” – language that neatly sidesteps the weighty implications of war. The media coverage is often a reflection of the media’s deep pockets, which are often aligned with interests that may benefit from the extraction of oil and other resources. This raises questions about the press’s impartiality and its willingness to hold powerful figures accountable.
One can’t ignore the possibility that the Venezuelan situation is a manufactured event with underlying deals that are being made. Maybe we agreed to stay out of the Ukrainian situation in exchange for Russia getting out of our backyard in Venezuela. The photo-ops and the bizarre circumstances surrounding the whole affair definitely give a certain feeling of a prearranged conclusion.
The role of U.S. media is increasingly viewed as weak, and frankly, ineffective. It is an act of war, plain and simple, and should be identified as such. We are dealing with corporate media that is motivated by personal and financial incentives. They seem to be more concerned with protecting their own investments than with reporting the truth. If the media had accurately reported the truth in 2015 when Trump announced his intentions, would the world be in the situation it’s in today?
It seems that the playbook is becoming clearer. The media is becoming more and more hesitant to use the word “war” when referring to these events, which has become a tactic of the current administration. They are expertly trained to skirt the line of legal interpretation to avoid saying the word “war”.
The media, with its tendency to frame any enemy of the state as a “terrorist,” adds another layer of complexity. However, if the other side doesn’t fight back, we may not call it a war. Furthermore, according to the laws, a declaration of war would need to be made by Congress. Without these, the official designation of war seems to be put aside.
The U.S. media, specifically, the mainstream channels are often failing to provide fair and balanced coverage. They’re often skipping the part about the invasion and kidnapping to talk about stock prices. This is not normal behavior.
This is a dangerous trend. The media, which should be the gatekeeper of truth, is instead becoming an enabler of questionable actions. Their silence, or their manipulation of the facts, is a disservice to the public and a threat to democracy.