"For evidence of this, just review the past week's coverage of President Donald Trump's illegal abduction and overthrow of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Once the kidnapping operation swung into gear, our most prominent newsrooms obediently adopted their time-honored patterns: indulging war lust, sidestepping or downplaying the rule of law, and uncritically cheerleading yet another violent foreign intervention by the US military."
"But "captured" is a term you use for someone who is wanted as part of a legitimate legal process. It's what you say about a criminal on the run. It is not a term that has any coherent meaning when one country's military violently attacks another country, illegally seizes its president on grounds that are widely deemed to be spurious, flies him out of the country, and imprisons him."
Mainstream news outlets framed the US seizure of Nicolás Maduro with euphemisms like "captured," normalizing an act that amounted to an illegal abduction and overthrow. Major outlets repeatedly adopted similar language and narratives that downplayed rule-of-law concerns and celebrated military action. The coverage prioritized war lust and uncritical support for US intervention rather than sober legal or human-rights analysis. Editorial choices and word selection shaped public perception to align with pro-intervention framing. Institutional practices, including directives about permissible language, reinforced a pattern of reportage that favored imperialist objectives over accurate terminology and accountability.
Read at The Nation
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]