[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
ACTION ALERT: Why Didn't NYT, WaPo Report What They Knew About Venezuelan Invasion? Drew Favakeh ([link removed])


Semafor: News organizations held off on reporting Venezuela raid

Semafor (1/3/26 ([link removed]) ): "The decision...to hold the news reflected the time-honored deference that some major news outlets afford the White House regarding secretive US military operations."

When the Trump administration invaded Venezuela and kidnapped President Nicolás Maduro on January 3, the New York Times and Washington Post framed it as a surprise.

In a 2,000-word play-by-play, the Post (1/3/26 ([link removed]) ) called it a “surprise strike” in a headline, and a “secretive operation” in the article. The Times, for its part, dubbed it a “surprise nighttime operation” (1/3/26 ([link removed]) ), noting that “the military took pains to maintain so-called tactical surprise” (1/3/26 ([link removed]) ).

But word quickly got out that it was not a surprise to either paper. Semafor (1/3/26 ([link removed]) ), an outlet co-founded by former Times media columnist Ben Smith, reported that both the Times and Post “learned of a secret US raid on Venezuela soon before it was scheduled to begin,” but chose not to report on it, to “avoid endangering US troops.” Semafor sourced its report to “two people familiar with the communications between the administration and the news organizations.”

Semafor’s reporting didn’t clarify which individuals at each organization were aware of the forthcoming operation, but it wrote that the outlets decided “to hold off their reporting for several hours after the administration warned that reporting could have exposed American troops performing the operation.”


** 'Did not have verified details'
------------------------------------------------------------
WaPo: Audacious Maduro raid relied on months of preparation, surprise strike

The "surprise strike" against Venezuela (Washington Post, 1/3/26 ([link removed]) ) was apparently not a surprise to leading newspapers.

The New York Times and Washington Post suppressed the story as Trump continues to crack down on press freedom. Trump has implemented new, restrictive media policies that led major news outlets to give up their news desks at the Pentagon (AP, 10/15/25 ([link removed]) ). The president has filed costly lawsuits against the media, including a $15 billion defamation suit against the Times for multiple books and articles published shortly before the 2024 election (AP, 9/16/25 ([link removed]) ). The Times, meanwhile, is suing what Trump calls the Department of War over its new press policy (New York Times, 12/4/25 ([link removed]) ).

Whether the Times or Post should have exposed the operation is—at the very least—a legitimate question that should be debated in the public forum. And yet the Post has failed to even address Semafor's report. Times executive editor Joe Kahn, meanwhile, challenged Semafor’s reporting in a Times morning newsletter (1/12/26 ([link removed]) ) more than a week later.

In response to a reader question, Kahn said that, "contrary to some claims," the Times “did not have verified details about the pending operation to capture Maduro or a story prepared, nor did we withhold publication at the request of the Trump administration.”

But Semafor's report—the only claims that have been publicly made about the Times' withholding of information—made no mention of details being "verified," or a story being "prepared." It's highly doubtful that the Pentagon would ever verify such information to a news organization prior to an operation—or that a US corporate news organization like the Times would be so bold as to prepare such a story without permission.

Kahn acknowledged that the Times was "aware of the possibility that that planning could result in new operations," given its previous reporting and "close contact with sources." And he admitted that the Times “does consult with the military when there are concerns that exposure of specific operational information could risk the lives of American troops,” but he claimed that was “not relevant in this case.”

Kahn added that “we take those concerns seriously, and have at times delayed publication or withheld details if they might lead to direct threats to members of the military.” He said, though, “in all such cases, we make our editorial decisions independently.”

It might be true that reporting a story about the Venezuela invasion before it happened could have endangered US troops. This is a familiar justification, used by US corporate media to suppress the story of the Bay of Pigs invasion ([link removed]) and delay reporting on the NSA wiretapping ([link removed]) during the Bush administration, as Semafor noted.

But there is a very real possibility that exposing the operation—for which Trump did not seek congressional approval, and which is widely viewed by international law experts as illegal—could have saved the hundred people who were killed by the airstrikes (New York Times, 1/8/26 ([link removed]) ), including an 80-year-old woman (New York Times, 1/3/26 ([link removed]) ; Washington Post, 1/4/26 ([link removed]) ).
------------------------------------------------------------


** ACTION ALERT:
------------------------------------------------------------

Please ask the New York Times and Washington Post why they failed to report on the Venezuelan invasion and kidnapping when it could have saved lives. Please ask their specific criteria for delaying significant information they receive, and whether the legality of US actions play any role whatsoever in their consideration.


** CONTACT:
------------------------------------------------------------

New York Times: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) and [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) (or via Bluesky @NYTimes.com ([link removed]) )

Washington Post: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) (or via Bluesky @WashingtonPost.com ([link removed]) )

Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in the comments thread here.
Read more ([link removed])

Share this post: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Twitter"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Twitter" alt="Twitter" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Facebook"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Facebook" alt="Facebook" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Pinterest"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Pinterest" alt="Pinterest" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn" alt="LinkedIn" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Google Plus"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Google Plus" alt="Google Plus" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Instapaper"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Instapaper" alt="Instapaper" class="mc-share"></a>
​

© 2021 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])

change your preferences ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .