This needs to be beaten into the heads of everyone that opposes Trump.
Chuck Schumer (et al.) can do fuck all about Trump without enough Republicans.
Because they’re complicit in all of this. They accept his framing of this as a “law enforcement operation” and call it a “capture” uncritically. They report him saying the US is going to “run” Venezuela without asking what that means or how. They had advance notice the attack was going to happen and refused to report it when doing so might have persuaded him to back down. They’re falling over themselves to praise how tactically brilliant and bold a move it was and don’t offer any pushback to the lies and clear warlust coming from the admin.
They’re far too wedded to the idea that If The President Says It It Must Be True and have turned themselves into stenographers instead of journalists because access to power is more important to them than serving the public good.
Which media organization outside of the right wing sphere is doing this?
I disagree. If you feel the media has been too deferential to Trump, my advice is you should stop watching Fox news. The rest of the media has been reporting the facts and the facts have been damning to Trump and the Republicans without any need for the media to editorialize.
The Washington Post, for one;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/01/03/venezuela-trump-maduro-operation-machado-next/
And the CBS Evening News gave three segments to Hegseth to gush over the greatness of Dear Leader;
If they’re calling it a “capture” and not an “abduction” then they’re not reporting the facts, they’re regurgitating talking points.
I said outside of the right wing sphere; they’ve clearly gone to the right and have been supporting Trump for a while. We have a Pit thread devoted to that fact for crying out loud.
But it was Hegseth doing it, not CBS News. They gave a platform, but didn’t do it themselves.
So it seems like your statement was inaccurate.
Is the New York Times in “the right wing sphere”?
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/05/opinion/international-world/trump-maduro-oust-raid.html
When was the last time a prime time network news broadcast gave three segments to ANYBODY?
That’s the point, isn’t it? The media is giving far more deference to Trump than they would any other president.
It is, but that wasn’t written by anyone at the NYT. That’s why it’s a “guest essay”.
I’m with you in criticizing them for giving these people a platform. That is shameful. But “the media” isn’t praising him. That’s just a fabrication on your part.
It’s ironic to criticize the media for not pushing back against mistrutths while being guilty of it yourself.
I’m definitely not defending what the media is doing, but criticize them for legitimate reasons. There are completely legitimate reasons to criticize them.
Yeah, asking the wrong questions gets you labeled as “nasty” (and sometimes called “piggy”) and may get your press credentials revoked. Someone here may be mistaking the US for an actual functional democracy.
Just this morning, I saw on a video (it might have been MeidasTouch) that this administration has gone full-blown Orwellian in language. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations actually told the Security Council, “We did not conduct a miltiary action against Venezuela. We just used the military to effect an arrest”.
That’s the very definition of a military action! If you used the military to attack someone, you conducted a military action.
So, with someone who has the absolute gall to utter that nonsense in the premier international forum, don’t expect anything other than Orwellian verbiage or actions either.
You might call it a special military operation, even.
I’m not suggesting that everyone was working with the US such that they could crowd surf maduro out the front door.
What the theory is, is that a few senior generals were cooperating and helped pick a time and location where an operation would be feasible in exchange for their own safety.
I don’t think we can call it just “blather” when the US has just demonstrated their use of deadly force to back up his whims; laws and Congress be damned.
In any case, your response is completely tangential to my point, to the thing you quoted. I was saying that the obvious reluctance to let the actual people’s choice be interim president, and sidelining of the idea of elections, and apparent willingness to work with wanted criminals in the maduro regime, all point to some behind the scenes coordination.
If you want to believe the Venezuelans’ rights will not be trampled…great; I wish I had your optimism. It’s nothing to do with my point though.
Did someone employed by the NYT read this fucking essay and then say “yes, let’s put this steaming turd on our website”?
I see in the news that the U.S. is demanding 3 things from Venezuela, and if they are not urgently complied with, threatening more military actions (or so I interpret).
- Reinforce the fight against drug trafficking
- Expel Iranian, Cuban and other enemy nation agents.
- Stop selling oil to U.S. enemies.
There’s apparently some rumblings about “Free and fair elections” also but not as a priority.
So, the way they plan on “running” things seems clear, do as we say or else suffer Maduro’s fate, lather rinse repeat until you find a sufficiently accommodating colonial administrator (calling the post “president” seems quaint at this point).
No he couldn’t. Melania would kick his ass. I think she’s the only person he’s afraid of.
Did you actually read my whole post?
A person employed by “the media” read an essay praising Trump for kidnapping Venezuela’s President and decided to put that essay on “the media” that they run.
The fact that this essay was written by a third party is irrelevant. “The media” decided to publicize it. They weren’t
and then finding out later how the platform was used. They knew exactly what was going to be said, and purposefully promoted it.
They don’t get to hide behind “it was someone else’s opinion.” They saw what was going to be said, and helped the guy say it to as wide an audience as possible.
This is exactly how these despicable ideas become normalized, we put them out there without comment, let the awful ideas permeate the world and persuade folks that it’s actually a good thing to invade our neighbors. To accept the ideas as just someone’s opinion, well not just someone, someone important and trustworthy enough to get a NYT byline. Your stupid racist uncle would never get that accolade, but Mr. Kroenig obviously is a person of importance, so maybe he has a point.
I get that you called it shameful, but I reject the idea that we are responsible for hitting the exact perfect point of media criticism, to not go too far, when the media has spent over a decade normalizing insanity, for the express purpose of improving their bottom line.
As evidenced by US helicopters flying low over cities without taking any fire. And it’s been shown in Ukraine that a few defenders with machine guns or shoulder launched missiles make heliborne operations very dangerous.
Your complaint is that The New York Times ran an OpEd supporting the president’s actions? That’s what a respectable and responsible newspaper does; run a variety of opinions, not just its own.