Media Wonders Why Trump's 'Intervention' Isn't Called 'War'
The Intercept points out the glaring omission: Trump’s aggressive maneuvers against Venezuela, including military threats and sanctions designed to collapse the Maduro government, were never fully labeled as acts of war by the establishment media. This isn't just about Trump. The historical record shows a consistent pattern: when the U.S. acts unilaterally to overthrow governments, from Chile in
1973 to Iraq in 2003, our domestic press often adopts the State Department's preferred euphemisms. It's 'regime change,' 'stabilization efforts,' or 'security initiatives' until the body count climbs too high to ignore. One might suggest this linguistic sleight-of-hand is reserved. Say, for nations that haven't been designated as adversaries, or perhaps ones the U.S. isn't trying to destabilize.
The media's commitment to calling things what they are seems to depend heavily on whose geopolitical ox is being gored. It raises questions about the press's role: are they reporters or stenographers for perpetual intervention?