According to Semafor, both the New York Times and the Washington Post knew about the US’s plan to invade Venezuela before the attack took place. Despite this, they did not report on what they knew, potentially preventing the attack before it could happen. Allegedly, they did this to protect the US soldiers who carried out the criminal attack on a sovereign nation:
These outlets could have published the details of the attack plan and likely stopped it from happening, but they chose protecting the agents of empire over averting an outright war. They are as complicit in whatever happens next as any soldier or president. https://t.co/z2ea4WktH9
— James
(@GoodVibePolitik) January 4, 2026
As the New York Times is now reporting, Venezuela says the US strikes on civilian targets resulted in the deaths of 40 people.
The death of democracy
For those who don’t know, the Washington Post has a very famous slogan:
Democracy dies in darkness
Please keep this in mind as you read Semafor’s reporting:
The New York Times and Washington Post learned of a secret US raid on Venezuela soon before it was scheduled to begin Friday night — but held off publishing what they knew to avoid endangering US troops, two people familiar with the communications between the administration and the news organizations said.
Semafor describe this agreement to “maintain official secrecy” as a ‘longstanding tradition’ in American journalism. They additionally note there’s no formal way for the government to “prevent publication of secrets”, which is as you’d expect given the US’s supposed belief in freedom of speech.
What this means is that neither outlet was legally obligated to kill the story (or to ‘smother it in the darkness of silence‘, as the columnists of the Washington Post might opine when reporting on another country).
Since Semafor published their report, people have highlighted that these outlets acted like they didn’t know in advance after the attack on Venezuela. If it’s true that they were indeed made aware, they no doubt behaved like this to avoid suspicion, protecting their reputation:
this original headline is infinitely funnier w this new information https://t.co/dCZSV2cd8n pic.twitter.com/rb1m9vXbyG
— hasanabi (@hasanthehun) January 4, 2026
The New York Times had the option to inform the world of something they’re saying was “illegal and unwise”, a chance to boldly remind everyone why journalism is important and decided against it lol https://t.co/JrrE21B6k6 pic.twitter.com/mEmxL7hD0m
— sasquatch liasons
(@gaporwave) January 4, 2026
Spokespeople for the White House, the Pentagon, and the Washington Post declined to comment on the conversations between journalists and officials Friday night. A Times spokesperson didn’t immediately offer a response to an inquiry.
Untrustworthy over Venezuela… and everything
Infamously, both the New York Times and the Washington Post “sold the war in Iraq“. As we all know now (and as most of us understood at the time), the story about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction was a lie. The fact that the media went along with this lie permanently damaged the reputation of these outlets. It also led to the rise of independent news sources which were willing to report what others would not, including the Canaryand Declassified UK when it comes to Venezuela and other countries, for example*:*
As @jmcevoy_2 revealed for us in 2021, the UK was up to its neck in US regime change plans then. Nothing will have changed.
Exclusive: Juan Guaidó paid UK legal fees with looted Venezuelan money https://t.co/JFwJBw2tsA
— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) January 3, 2026
Last week, we received an email from MOD’s D-Notice Committee asking us to remove the name of the UK special forces officer advising the #Cameroon regime.
We decided not to play the game of the UK chumocracy, where journalists self-censor in order to please Whitehall. pic.twitter.com/q60bAwtufa
— Declassified UK (@declassifiedUK) February 17, 2022
Featured image via Wikimedia
By Willem Moore
From Canary via This RSS Feed.