After spending years manufacturing consent for US-sponsored regime change in Venezuela, having a government in Caracas subservient to Washington represented a new scenario for the corporate media. The novel conditions have raised few significant qualms for Western outlets. Tactical objections notwithstanding, there is no fundamental disagreement with the US running the affairs of a Global South country.

all 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 5 points 1 week ago (1 child)

Just americans americanning. Only this time, it's not in the Middle East.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    I mean.... It is business as usual. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be called out as wrong, but let's be honest here.

  • source
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago

    Just liberalism doing what liberalism does.

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/usa@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago

    Why aren't Venezuelans angrier?

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago

    Western Media Accept [Current President] Plundering of [Country in the Global South] [Resource] as Business as Usual

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    Can't wait for them to kick out the US corpos again, even if it probably won't be anytime soon.

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/socialism@beehaw.org view that post
    [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago*

    That's the thing. It is business as usual. The media appears complicit because they are. They're servants of capital. And Democrats haven't been fighting much to stop it either, if you [general] haven't noticed. It's the Uni-Party: they all get along on these issues, like Israel and surveillance. Together with business, it's truly non-partisan. It's an incentive apparatus to which all apparent sources of power are secretly beholden

  • source