The US media's reluctance to describe Donald Trump's Venezuela attack as an act of war is a troubling trend that highlights the state subservience and stenography of mainstream journalism. Despite clear evidence of brazen aggression, violence, and violations of international law, the media has instead opted for euphemistic language that sanitizes and provides pseudo-legal justification for Trump's actions.
The attack on Venezuela was a classic case of "police action" - a term coined by the Pentagon to describe military interventions that avoid labeling them as acts of war. This framing is not only misleading but also revealing of the media's willingness to adopt the language preferred by those in power, even when it comes at the expense of accuracy and truth.
The New York Times, for example, has consistently referred to Trump's actions in Venezuela as a "pressure campaign" or an "operation," rather than an act of war. This lack of nuance is not only a failure of journalism but also a betrayal of the public's right to know the truth about government actions.
By adopting this language, the media is effectively lending legitimacy to Trump's aggression and providing a veneer of international lawfulness that does not exist. It is a form of court stenography that undermines the integrity of reporting and threatens the very foundations of democracy.
The Intercept has long argued that the media should adopt clear and martial language when describing government actions, particularly when they involve violence and aggression. We believe that using terms like "act of war" and "invasion" is essential to holding those in power accountable and to providing a accurate record of history.
Ultimately, the media's reluctance to describe Trump's Venezuela attack as an act of war is a symptom of a larger problem - a systemic failure of journalism to hold those in power accountable. It is time for the media to take a stand and adopt the language that accurately reflects the actions of those in power. Anything less would be a betrayal of the public's trust and a further erosion of democracy.
The attack on Venezuela was a classic case of "police action" - a term coined by the Pentagon to describe military interventions that avoid labeling them as acts of war. This framing is not only misleading but also revealing of the media's willingness to adopt the language preferred by those in power, even when it comes at the expense of accuracy and truth.
The New York Times, for example, has consistently referred to Trump's actions in Venezuela as a "pressure campaign" or an "operation," rather than an act of war. This lack of nuance is not only a failure of journalism but also a betrayal of the public's right to know the truth about government actions.
By adopting this language, the media is effectively lending legitimacy to Trump's aggression and providing a veneer of international lawfulness that does not exist. It is a form of court stenography that undermines the integrity of reporting and threatens the very foundations of democracy.
The Intercept has long argued that the media should adopt clear and martial language when describing government actions, particularly when they involve violence and aggression. We believe that using terms like "act of war" and "invasion" is essential to holding those in power accountable and to providing a accurate record of history.
Ultimately, the media's reluctance to describe Trump's Venezuela attack as an act of war is a symptom of a larger problem - a systemic failure of journalism to hold those in power accountable. It is time for the media to take a stand and adopt the language that accurately reflects the actions of those in power. Anything less would be a betrayal of the public's trust and a further erosion of democracy.
I'm low-key shocked that some major outlets are still playing it super safe when it comes to Trump's Venezuela thing. Like, come on, man! 
It's not like they're exactly breaking news or anything. We've all seen the vids and pics of the 'pressure campaign'... er, I mean, "act of war" now. The NYT is still using this weird "operation" language? That's some next-level spin doctoring right there 
. What's up with that? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they're still trying to hold Trump accountable, but can't they just be honest for once?! 
. It seems like our media outlets are more concerned with not ruffling any feathers than with telling us the truth. I mean, come on, if Trump is using "pressure campaign" or "operation" to describe what he's doing in Venezuela, that's just code for "we're going to invade and bully you." It's time for our journalists to stop being so spineless and start using words that actually convey what's happening. I don't want my news to be written by someone who is more afraid of upsetting the powerful than telling the truth, it's not journalism if it's not held accountable 
I'm so done with how the media is covering Trump's Venezuela situation 
It's like they're trying to sugarcoat what's really going on. News outlets need to step up their game and call it like it is - an act of war, plain and simple 
If we don't hold those in power accountable, how can we expect them to be transparent? The public deserves to know the truth 
️
They're using terms like "pressure campaign" or "operation" instead, which just doesn't seem right. It's like they're trying to make it sound all nice and innocent when in reality it sounds super aggressive. 
And if the media's using certain words, it can definitely affect how we think about things. So, is it okay to use language that might be a little more... diplomatic or watered down, just to avoid conflict or controversy?
. We need to calm down the narrative, not fan the flames 
. The media should be more like diplomats, trying to find a peaceful solution rather than shouting "War!" 
. And btw, what's with this obsession with "power" & "accountability"? Can't we just get along? 
. I get it, journalists don't want to ruffle any feathers, but come on, be honest with us 
. This whole thing is just a major fail for journalism, and I'm low-key impressed by The Intercept for speaking truth to power 
... I mean, come on, if you're gonna call it a "pressure campaign" or whatever, at least have the decency to use a bold font 
. Can't we all just agree that saying something is an act of war doesn't exactly send shivers down the spines of those in power? 
. I mean, come on, if you're gonna report on something as crazy as Trump sending troops into Venezuela, shouldn't you at least use words that accurately describe what's happening? "Pressure campaign" or "operation" just don't cut it when there are guns blazing and people getting hurt 
. It's like they're more worried about not offending anyone in power than about telling the truth to the public. I get that journalists want to be careful, but sometimes you gotta take a stand and use language that reflects what's really going on. Anything less feels like a cop-out 
.
. I mean, if there's evidence of an attack and it's clear that it's some kind of aggression, shouldn't we be calling it out for what it is? 
. And you know what's even worse? When they use special words that make it sound less bad 
. Not cool, media 
I mean, come on guys, use the words "act of war" and "invasion" already! 
It's so frustrating when the truth gets watered down like that. We deserve better! 