

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
NBC reported Friday that the US military is considering options including drone strikes against drug cartel members within the South American country, prompting fears of escalation.
The Trump administration may strike alleged drug targets inside Venezuela's borders within weeks, sources familiar with the situation told NBC News on Friday.
Two US officials and two other sources with knowledge of the conversations that had taken place said that the US military was considering plans that could include drone strikes against members and leaders of drug trafficking groups as well as drug laboratories. If approved, the strikes would be a further escalation following three Trump administration attacks on alleged drug-carrying boats in the Caribbean that have killed at least 17 people, even though the administration has provided no evidence that those killed were actually smuggling drugs.
"More mass murder on the cards?" the news outlet Venezeulanaysis wrote in response. “NBC reports that the Trump administration is weighing strikes against 'drug targets' (emphasis on the air quotes) inside Venezuelan territory. Lots of speculation and anonymous sources, but it shows that no war crimes are off limits."
US President Donald Trump has already come under heavy criticism for authorizing boat strikes that many decry as illegal. Democratic lawmakers have moved to bar the president from authorizing further attacks, and Colombian President Gustavo Petro called for the United Nations to take criminal proceedings against the US president in a speech on Tuesday.
"This is the most egregious instance of disinformation against our nation, intended to justify an escalation to armed conflict that would inflict catastrophic damage across the entire continent."
Now, observers are responding with alarm to the news that the administration might go even further.
El Pais correspondent Juan Diego Quesada wrote on social media that strikes within Venezuelan territory "would escalate the conflict to a level whose consequences I dare not measure."
"How would this not be considered an act of war?" asked poster Cindy Gossett. "Trump can't just claim Venezuelan citizens are drug lords therefore he's going to fly a drone over and destroy them. If Venezuela did the same in our country it wouldn't be accepted."
Speaking at the UN General Assembly on Friday, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil Pinto said that the US had an “illegal and completely immoral military threat hanging over our heads."
Pinto also cast doubt on the notion that the Trump administration's true aim was to combat the drug trade.
He accused the US of trying to permit “external powers to rob Venezuela’s immeasurable oil and gas wealth" and said that the administration was using “vulgar and perverse lies” to “justify an atrocious, extravagant, and immoral multibillion-dollar military threat."
Trump has yet to authorize any particular plan, according to NBC. The Pentagon declined to comment on their report, and the White House referred the outlet to a previous statement from Trump: "We’ll see what happens. Venezuela is sending us their gang members, their drug dealers, and drugs. It’s not acceptable.”
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has denied that his administration has not done enough to prevent drug trafficking through the South American country, as Trump has accused.
Maduro sent a letter to the White House on September 6 calling for peace and dialogue and defending his record, noting that, according to a UN report, only 5% of the drugs that leave Colombia do so via Venezuela.
He wrote of the trafficking claims, "This is the most egregious instance of disinformation against our nation, intended to justify an escalation to armed conflict that would inflict catastrophic damage across the entire continent."
Toward the end of the letter, he appealed to Trump to work with him to reduce tensions.
"President, I hope that together we can defeat the falsehoods that have sullied our relationship, which must be historic and peaceful," Maduro wrote.
"The commercial news media, which helped elevate Trump to power, have proven repeatedly that they are ill-equipped to withstand such pressures," warned one scholar.
As US President Donald Trump late on Sunday lashed out against the American media and threatened to pull broadcasting licenses from networks for their alleged "biased" coverage of him, media experts said the danger to the news media lies partially in corporate outlets' potential capitulation to the Trump administration.
In a post on his Truth Social platform, the president railed against NBC and ABC, which he called "two of the absolute worst and most biased networks anywhere in the world."
He then said the networks should "lose their licenses for their unfair coverage of Republicans and/or conservatives, but at a minimum, they should pay up BIG for having the privilege of using the most valuable airwaves anywhere at anytime!!!"
The president concluded his angry rant by declaring that "crooked 'journalism' should not be rewarded, it should be terminated!!!"
Trump did not point to any specifics regarding his claim that the networks' coverage of him is unfair, but asserted that they "give [him] 97% bad stories."
This is not the first time that Trump has called on the Federal Communications Commission to strip broadcasters' licenses for producing news he doesn't like, although so far no network has had its license revoked by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Even so, some experts were alarmed at Trump's latest attacks, which they feared could lead to more capitulation from major media corporations similar to the $16 million settlement that CBS parent company Paramount agreed to earlier this summer, which stemmed from what experts called a meritless lawsuits over a "60 Minutes" interview with 2024 Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris.
Victor Pickard, professor of media policy and political economy at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication, described the president's angry rants as "yet more worrying signs that Trump knows no limits in exerting dictatorial power over our news media."
"The commercial news media, which helped elevate Trump to power, have proven repeatedly that they are ill-equipped to withstand such pressures since they typically privilege their profit motives over democratic needs," he said. "Some individual journalists have shown much courage despite Trump's attacks, but the corporate media institutions themselves too often capitulate."
Tim Karr, senior director of strategy and communications at Free Press, echoed Pickard's point about the media being responsible for the president's political rise, and he singled out NBC's decision to air Trump's reality TV show, "The Apprentice," which he said gave Americans the false impression that he was a "successful and decisive businessman."
He also expressed concerns that broadcasters would offer the president more concessions in an attempt to avoid retaliation.
"What should be more worrying to anyone who appreciates a free press is the degrees to which these massive media conglomerates are capitulating before the president," he said. "If we've learned anything about the media from the past eight months, it's that massive media companies are far too beholden to the political elite to speak truth to power."
He then accused the major networks of cowering before Trump despite having the First Amendment clearly on their side.
"NBC and ABC are protected under the First Amendment from the sort of government meddling proposed here by Trump—and enacted by his obsequious FCC chairman, Brendan Carr," he said. "The problem is that big media conglomerates like these two would rather cave to the president than stand up for their constitutional rights."
"We need more climate journalism, not less," said one Media Matters for America writer.
Last year featured not only what scientists worldwide confirmed was the hottest year in human history but also a 25% drop in corporate broadcast networks' coverage of the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency, according to an analysis released Thursday.
Media Matters for America, which has long tracked television networks' climate coverage, reviewed transcripts and video databases for ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox Broadcasting Co. The watchdog found that in 2023, despite the worsening global crisis, the networks collectively had just 1,032 minutes of coverage, down from 1,374 minutes in 2022 and 1,316 minutes in 2021.
That amounts to less than 1% of all corporate broadcast coverage aired last year, notes the analysis authored by Media Matters senior writer Evlondo Cooper with contributions from Allison Fisher, director of the group's climate and energy program.
"Last year's extreme climate events further illustrated the need for consistent, substantive, and wide-ranging news coverage about all facets of climate change."
They wrote that "discussion of extreme weather events aired during 37% of coverage, or 160 out of 435 segments. June through September saw the most severe extreme weather events and accounted for just over 54% of total coverage."
"Only 12% of climate segments on corporate broadcast news, or 52 out of 435, mentioned 'fossil fuels,'" the pair pointed out. "This is a slight increase from 2022, when 'fossil fuels' were mentioned in only 8% of climate segments."
"Solutions or actions that may be taken in response to climate change were mentioned in 22% of climate segments," they highlighted. That ended an upward trend: 29% in 2020, 31% in 2021, and 35% in 2022.
Cooper and Fisher also noted that climate scientists made up 10% of featured guests, compared with just 4% in 2022; "white men dominated the demographics of guests featured in climate segments" for the seventh year straight; and discussions of climate justice appeared in only 5% of coverage, up from 3% the previous year.
Looking at only the "Big Three" of the television world—ABC, CBS, and NBC—they found that climate coverage dropped 23% for morning news programs and 36% for nightly shows. CBS aired 42% of all climate coverage while ABC had the least of the trio and NBC had the biggest decrease from 2022.
For the review of Sunday morning political shows, the researchers included Fox. They found that in 102 combined minutes of airtime across 26 segments, CBS again led the pack—it was the only network that increased coverage, from 20 minutes in 2022 to 66 minutes, or over half the total, in 2023.
The analysis recognizes a "significant decline" in coverage of the Biden administration's efforts to combat the climate emergency, explaining:
This reduction in corporate broadcast news attention occurred during a critical period for climate policy implementation, particularly of the Inflation Reduction Act, which continued to drive positive outcomes in the clean energy market, and new regulations announced during COP28 to curb methane emissions. Despite these significant actions, corporate broadcast networks' focus on the administration's climate initiatives was limited.
COP28, the United Nations' annual climate summit near the end of the year, also received "very limited" coverage from the networks, the report says. The conference—which scientists called "a tragedy for the planet" because its final agreement didn't demand a global fossil fuel phaseout—was mentioned in just 14 segments, accounting for 3% of climate coverage.
As Common Dreams has reported, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that in addition to being the hottest year on record, 2023 also had 28 U.S. disasters that caused at least $1 billion in damage, which collectively cost at least $92.9 billion.
"Last year's extreme climate events further illustrated the need for consistent, substantive, and wide-ranging news coverage about all facets of climate change," Cooper and Fisher wrote. "Effective reporting should incorporate a wide range of voices during coverage of extreme weather events, major climate studies, and policy decisions; when applicable, coverage should expose systemic issues that contribute to disproportionate climate impacts; and climate coverage must consistently report not only the impacts of climate change but the drivers of global warming and the solutions that move us away from fossil fuel dependence."
In a social media post promoting the new analysis, Cooper concluded that "we need more climate journalism, not less."