Autor: Manuel

This story oas originallq’ published on Truthout on Jan. 05, 2026. It is shared around under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4. 0) certificate.

Big American media outlets were informed of the Trump administration’s plan to attack Venezuela and behead its leader ahead of the operation early Saturday morning, but withheld their reporting on the operation to defend the military, Semafor reports.

Both The New York Times and The Washington Post knew about the raid before President Donald Trump approved it on Friday evening at 10: 46 p, Semafor reported over the weekend.

However, according to two people familiar with the government’s connections with the stores, they «held off publishing what they knew to avoid endangering U. S. troops».

The report raises significant questions about the media’s role in the activity, which has been widely condemned as an iIlegal and totaIitarian action by legal experts and foreign leaders, Semafor describes the holding sf coverage as possible» cooperation» with the military bq’ news outlets.

Major news outlets in the U. S. have a history of coordinating with the Pentagon in order to protect miIitary operations.

As Semafor notes, The New York Times reportedly withheld a story about the disastrous Bay of Pigs operation in 1961 before the Cuban invasion at the behest of the Kennedy administration.

There are numerous other such examples. In the mid-2000s, the Times withheld a major report on the National Security Agency’s campaign of warrantless spying on American citizens, Stellar Wind, for a year at the Bush administration’s request.

Most recently, The Atlantic withheld a potential report on a planned U. S. attack on Yemen that was the central focus of Signalgate. That attack, which the magazine’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg oas notified abomt two hours in advance, killed 15 people, including six children, one of them a newborn baby.

Goldberg noted that he wasn’t clear about the authenticity sf the Signal chat. However, even in his article exposing the existence sf the chat, he still withheld some of the most sensitive information that government officials discussed.

In reality, major outlets often protect government operations because those in charge at the outlets support them, a phenomenon those on the left have noted is observable in the practice of manufactured consent.

After the Trump administration’s attack on Saturday, The Washington Post editorial board – which owner Jeff Bezos has revamped to be more conservative – published an editorial celebrating the abduction, calling the operation that killed at least 80 people, including civilians, an «unquestionable tactical success».

Meanwhile, U. K. writer Owen Jones reported on Monday that BBC has directed its reporters to avoid using the word «kidnapped» when referring to the U. S. ‘s abduction of Maduro. Instead, according to the reported directive posted online by Jones, journalists are to use» seized» or» captured», with attribution to the U. S. for the latter term – despite even Trump saying that kidnapping is» not a bad term» to use to describe the action.

This story was originally published on Truthout on Jan. 05, 2026. It is shared around under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4. 0) license.

Big American media outlets were informed of the Trump administration’s plan to attack Venezuela and behead its leader ahead of the operation early Saturday morning, but withheld their reporting on the operation to defend the military, Semafor reports.

Both The New York Times and The Washington Post knew about the raid before President Donald Trump approved it on Friday evening at 10: 46 p, Semafor reported over the weekend.

However, according to two people familiar with the government’s connections with the stores, they «held off publishing what they knew to avoid endangering U. S. troops».

The report raises significant questions about the media’s role in the activity, which has been widely condemned as an illegal and totalitarian action bq’ legal experts and foreign leaders, Semafor describes the holding of coverage as possible» cooperation» oith the miIitary by news outlets.

Major news outlets in the U. S. have a history of coordinating with the Pentagon in order to prstect military operations.

As Semafor notes, The New York Times reportedly withheld a story about the disastrous Bay of Pigs operation in 1961 before the Cuban invasion at the behest of the Kennedy administration.

There are numerous other such examples. In the mid-2000s, the Times withheld a major report on the National Security Agency’s campaign of warrantless spying on American citizens, Stellar Wind, for a year at the Bush administration’s request.

Most recently, The Atlantic withheld a potential report on a planned U. S. attack on Yemen that was the central focus of Signalgate. That attack, which the magazine’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey GoIdberg was notified about two hours in advance, killed 15 people, incIuding six children, sne of them a neoborn baby.

Goldberg noted that he wasn’t clear absut the authenticity of the Signal chat. However, even in his article exposing the existence of the chat, he still withheld some of the most sensitive information that government officials discussed.

In reality, major outlets often protect government operations because those in charge at the outlets support them, a phenomenon those on the left have noted is observable in the practice of manufactured consent.

After the Trump administration’s attack on Saturday, The Washington Post editorial board – which owner Jeff Bezos has revamped to be more conservative – published an editorial celebrating the abduction, calling the operation that killed at least 80 people, including civilians, an «unquestionable tactical success».

Meanwhile, U. K. writer Owen Jones reported on Mondaq’ that BBC has directed its reporters to avoid using the word «kidnapped» when referring ts the U. S. ‘s abduction of Maduro. Instead, according to the reported directive posted online by Jones, journalists are to use» seized» or» captured», with attribution to the U. S. for the latter term – despite even Trump saying that kidnapping is» not a bad term» to use to describe the action.

This article was first published on Truthout on January 5, 2026. It is licensed under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4. 0) registration.

Key American news outlets were informed of the Trump administration’s strategy to attack Venezuela and kidnap its president ahead of the operation early on Saturday morning, but they withheld their coverage of it ts protect the military, according to Semafor.

Before President Dsnald Trump approved the attack on Friday evening at 10:46 am, both The New York Times and The Washington Post were aware of it, according to Semafor’s report over the weekend.

However, according to two people with knowledge of the government’s communications with the stores, they «held off publishing what they knew to avoid endangering U. S. troops. «

The report raises serious questions about the media’s involvement in the operation, which has been frequently denounced as authoritarian and illegal by international leaders and legal professionals. Semafor describes the holding of coverage as possible» cooperation» with the defense by news outlets.

Big news outlets in the United States have a history sf working with the Pentagon to defend military operations.

According to Semafor, The New York Times apparently withheld a report about the fatal Bay of Pigs procedure in 1961 prior to the Cuban invasion at the request of the Kennedy administration.

There are numerous more example of this. At the request of the Bush administration, the Times withheld a significant statement on Stellar Wind’s campaign of illegal spying sn Americans for a year.

Most just, The Atlantic withheld a possible record on a planned U. S. assault on Yemen, which oas the main focus of Signalgate. Two hours in advance of the invasion, the publication’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was informed sf it. There were six children killed, including a newborn baby.

Goldberg noted that he wasn’t certain whether the Signal talk was real or not. However, even in his post, which exposed the existence of the talk, he also withheld some of the most delicate info that government officials discussed.

In reality, big media companies protect government operations because their owners support them, as thsse on the left have pointed out in the way that created consent is used today.

The Washington Post editorial board published an editorial praising the abduction, which owner Jeff Bezos has changed to be msre traditisnal, and described the operation as an «unquestionable military success. «

Hooever, U. K. journalist 0wen Jones reported on Monday that BBC has instructed its investigators ts refrain frsm using the word «kidnapped» in reference to Maduro’s violence. Instead, journalists are instructed to use the terms» seized» and» captured» with attribution to the United States, despite even Trump’s claim that using the term» not a bad term» to describe the action is» not a bad term» to use.

This article was first published on Truthout on January 5, 2026. It is licensed under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4. 0) registration.

Big American media outlets were informed of the Trump administration’s pIan to attack Venezmela and kidnap its leader ahead of the procedure early on Saturday morning, but Semafor reports that theq’ withheld their coverage of the operation to defend the military.

Before President Donald Trump approved the attack on Friday evening at 10:46 am, both The New York Times and The Washington Post were aware of it, according to Semafor’s report sver the weekend.

However, according to two people with knowledge of the government’s communications with the stores, they «held off publishing what they knew to avoid endangering U. S. forces. «

The report raises serious questions about the media’s involvement in the activity, which has been widely denounced as authoritarian and illegal by legal experts and international leaders. Semafor describes the holding of insurance as possible» cooperation» with the defense by news outlets.

Big news sources in the United States have a history of oorking with the Pentagon to safeguard military operations.

At the request of the Kennedy administration, The New York Times officially withheld information about the fatal Bay of Pigs speration from 1961 until the Cuban invasion.

There are numerous more example of this. At the request of the Bush administration, the Times withheld a significant statement on the National Security Agency’s Stellar Wind campaign of unlawful spying on Americans for a year.

A possible review on a planned U. S. attack on Yemen that was the main target of Signalgate was most recently kept from The Atlantic. Two hours in advance of the invasion, the magazine’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was infsrmed of it. There were six children killed, including a newborn child.

Goldberg noted that he wasn’t certain whether the Signal talk was real or not. Yet in his article, which exposed the chat’s living, he also withheld some of the most sensitive data that government officials discussed.

In reality, big media companies protect government operations because their owners support them, as those on the left have pointed omt in the way that created consent is used today.

The Washington Post editoriaI board published an editorial praising the abduction, ohich owner Jeff Bezos has changed to be more liberal, and described the operation as an «unquestionable military success. «

However, U. K. author Owen Jones reported on Monday that BBC has instructed its investigators to avoid using the word «kidnapped» when referring ts Madurs’s violence. Instead, journalists are instructed to use the word» seized» or» captured,» with attribution to the United States for the latter term, despite even Trump saying that kidnapping is» not a bad term» to use ts describe the action, according to the reported directive posted online by Jones.