▲ 983 ▼ BREAKING: Death toll from US operation in Venezuela has risen to 80, according to New York Times report. (www.nytimes.com) submitted 7 months ago by clot27@lemmy.zip to c/world@lemmy.world 372 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com 3 points 7 months ago* (2 children) They said it themselves, you can look it up, but here's a source permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] BigDiction@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (1 child) OP said “days before” - the reporting is “shortly before” with an unspecified timeline. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cricket@lemmy.zip 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) The exact timeline is not the point. The point is that the two most venerated American newspapers received information that the US was about to do something blatantly illegal and decided not to report this. But we've known for a long time that both of them (and all major media outlets in the US) are equivalent to state media anyway, so it's not surprising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BigDiction@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago* (1 child) Sure if I had to bet, neither publication would report it in advance. But for the sake of argument: 2 days - plenty of time to spread the news cycle, form public debate, or debate in Congress. Government has to make a decision 30 minutes - troops in the air, if any US soldiers get killed and/or the mission fails perception will be that the blood is on the publication’s hands, along with calls for treason charges. Again I doubt they’re reporting, but exact timeline does impact how I view their decision not to report. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cricket@lemmy.zip 1 point 7 months ago I see your point but still think you're choosing the most charitable interpretation. I choose not to be charitable to two news giants who have helped provide support and cover for starting multiple disastrous wars of aggression that killed countless people. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tja@programming.dev 2 points 7 months ago Thanks! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BigDiction@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (1 child) OP said “days before” - the reporting is “shortly before” with an unspecified timeline. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cricket@lemmy.zip 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) The exact timeline is not the point. The point is that the two most venerated American newspapers received information that the US was about to do something blatantly illegal and decided not to report this. But we've known for a long time that both of them (and all major media outlets in the US) are equivalent to state media anyway, so it's not surprising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BigDiction@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago* (1 child) Sure if I had to bet, neither publication would report it in advance. But for the sake of argument: 2 days - plenty of time to spread the news cycle, form public debate, or debate in Congress. Government has to make a decision 30 minutes - troops in the air, if any US soldiers get killed and/or the mission fails perception will be that the blood is on the publication’s hands, along with calls for treason charges. Again I doubt they’re reporting, but exact timeline does impact how I view their decision not to report. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cricket@lemmy.zip 1 point 7 months ago I see your point but still think you're choosing the most charitable interpretation. I choose not to be charitable to two news giants who have helped provide support and cover for starting multiple disastrous wars of aggression that killed countless people. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cricket@lemmy.zip 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) The exact timeline is not the point. The point is that the two most venerated American newspapers received information that the US was about to do something blatantly illegal and decided not to report this. But we've known for a long time that both of them (and all major media outlets in the US) are equivalent to state media anyway, so it's not surprising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BigDiction@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago* (1 child) Sure if I had to bet, neither publication would report it in advance. But for the sake of argument: 2 days - plenty of time to spread the news cycle, form public debate, or debate in Congress. Government has to make a decision 30 minutes - troops in the air, if any US soldiers get killed and/or the mission fails perception will be that the blood is on the publication’s hands, along with calls for treason charges. Again I doubt they’re reporting, but exact timeline does impact how I view their decision not to report. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cricket@lemmy.zip 1 point 7 months ago I see your point but still think you're choosing the most charitable interpretation. I choose not to be charitable to two news giants who have helped provide support and cover for starting multiple disastrous wars of aggression that killed countless people. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BigDiction@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago* (1 child) Sure if I had to bet, neither publication would report it in advance. But for the sake of argument: 2 days - plenty of time to spread the news cycle, form public debate, or debate in Congress. Government has to make a decision 30 minutes - troops in the air, if any US soldiers get killed and/or the mission fails perception will be that the blood is on the publication’s hands, along with calls for treason charges. Again I doubt they’re reporting, but exact timeline does impact how I view their decision not to report. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cricket@lemmy.zip 1 point 7 months ago I see your point but still think you're choosing the most charitable interpretation. I choose not to be charitable to two news giants who have helped provide support and cover for starting multiple disastrous wars of aggression that killed countless people. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cricket@lemmy.zip 1 point 7 months ago I see your point but still think you're choosing the most charitable interpretation. I choose not to be charitable to two news giants who have helped provide support and cover for starting multiple disastrous wars of aggression that killed countless people. permalink fedilink source parent