Two legacy media outlets were tipped off about the Trump administration’s unprecedented attack on Venezuela but chose not to report on to “avoid endangering US troops,” according to a report Saturday night from Semafor, sparking a social media frenzy of outrage.
“Absolutely f------ despicable,” wrote X user “KareBearScare,” a frequent political commentator who’s amassed more than 2,600 followers. “What’s even the point of the media besides to help this lawless administration undemocratically lie to the American people.”
Semafor learned that the Washington Post and the New York Times both had both been tipped off about the Trump administration’s operation to kidnap Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife after speaking with two people the outlet said were “familiar with the communications between the administration and the news organizations,” both of whom spoke with the outlet on the condition of anonymity.
“So they knew the Trump administration was about to carry out an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation and the abduction of its leader and stayed silent?” asked independent journalist Jasper Nathaniel in a social media post on X. “Where exactly is the line here?”
Legacy media outlets have a history of holding onto reporting under the justification of protecting American soldiers. The U.S.-backed Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba in 1961, for instance, saw the New York Times withhold key information in its reporting, and the outlet also withheld information regarding warrantless wiretapping during the Bush administration.
“If a media outlet has information about political leaders on the verge of committing an international crime of aggression, the job requires reporting about it,” wrote journalist Rishika Pardikar in a
social media post on X. “Not burying the story to shield the perpetrators - this would qualify as complicity and be called state-controlled media.”
