Recent public opinion polls indicate that Americans are conflicted about last weekend’s U.S. raid in Venezuela, which involved the seizure of leader Nicolás Maduro. While some media outlets appear to be amplifying approval for this controversial action, skepticism remains among the public.

Fox News has emerged as a prominent advocate for the raid, rallying support from its audience. However, even some conservative figures, such as former Fox host Megyn Kelly, have criticized the network’s coverage, likening it to “watching Russian propaganda.”

Mainstream media has also shown a tendency to hesitate in questioning the motivations behind this dramatic military operation. CBS News, under new editorial leadership, exemplified this with a broadcast that some perceived as a “Fox Lite” version of events. This segment included a montage celebrating Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s prominent role, which many viewed as tone-deaf given the seriousness of the situation.

Meanwhile, reputable outlets like the Associated Press, Reuters, the Guardian, the Washington Post, and the New York Times have provided in-depth analyses of the unfolding events. A notable piece in the Washington Post illustrated the growing despair in Caracas, headlined “Fear grips Caracas as a new wave of repression is unleashed in Venezuela.” This coverage starkly contrasted with an editorial that praised the raid as “one of the boldest moves a president has made in years.”

Complicating the narrative, reports surfaced suggesting that major news organizations, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, were aware of the raid prior to its execution but held back publication at the Trump administration’s request, citing concerns for the safety of U.S. troops. This raised critical questions regarding media responsibility and government transparency.

Ben Smith of Semafor remarked on the challenges of reporting sensitive military operations, emphasizing the need for discretion to protect lives. Generally, however, early coverage was characterized by a tone of admiration, with terms like “daring” frequently employed in broadcasts and articles. The New York Times later explored the “virtually flawless” mission, although it only cursorily addressed its legality.

Conversely, some voices, such as former labor secretary Robert Reich, drew connections between the raid in Venezuela and the Capitol insurrection of January 6, 2021, arguing both actions reflected a trend of unaccountable power plays that threaten democracy in America. He posited, “A direct line connects Trump’s attempted coup five years ago to his capture of Nicolás Maduro last weekend. Both were lawless and premised on the hubris of omnipotence.”

In a commendable move, the New Yorker featured an interview with international law expert Oona Hathaway, providing a critical analysis of the raid’s legality. This was an exception within a predominantly soft media narrative that has emerged regarding the U.S. military action.

As we navigate this pivotal moment in American history, media coverage plays a crucial role in shaping public perception. While some segments highlight the audacity of the operation, they often overlook the broader implications for civic engagement and government policy.