New Dangers Emerge From Media's Selective Coverage of Drug Boat Attacks

RedState 

The current controversy over President Trump’s lethal attacks on Venezuelan drug boats, especially one that allegedly targeted survivors in the water, has underlined the problems and perils of being a conscientious news consumer in an information age stricken by partisan media.

Who do you believe? And how do citizens find the truth among competing narratives, some of them dramatically compelling but fabricated or intentionally incomplete? Or do we simply roll the dice and choose a narrative that suits us?

False, incomplete, or fabricated news has become an extremely complex — and I would argue dangerous — situation with real-life political consequences looming in just 11 months in crucial midterm elections. Voters then will pass judgment on most members of Congress as surrogates for Trump’s presidency and his opposition, basing their ballot choices on some faulty information. 

With only two modern exceptions (1998 and 2002), the party of an incumbent president loses congressional seats in midterms. 

The loss of only a handful of Republican seats in the House or Senate, or both, would create a political gridlock for Trump’s final two years with minimal legislative progress and threats of more shutdowns and divisions over renewed impeachment attempts.

The confusing complexities of the Washington scene became clear in the past week. Democrats have been floundering since their decisive defeats in 2024 following the expensive paralysis of Joe Biden’s term, the extended cover-up of his mental incapacity, and then the stunningly inept, content-free Kamala Harris campaign.

Lacking effective leadership and new ideas, Democrats simply reverted to their anti-everything Trump mantra. That flawed thinking has failed to torpedo his political career for 10 years, so maybe more of it might.

This put them in the position of opposing such popular things as deporting criminal illegal immigrants, supporting local police, and combating illegal drugs. If this seems strangely silly, you’re right.

Recently, six Democrats released a video urging members of the military to defy illegal orders. This was shared widely by sympathetic media.

However, it began to crumble when the seditious six were unable to provide examples of illegal orders that should be defied.

Just then, as if by some media miracle, the Washington Post turned the narrative back to Trump with a sensational account that seemed to suggest a war crime. 

In an article published last week, based on anonymous sources, the Post reported that during the first military attack on an alleged Venezuelan drug boat on Sept. 2, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth had told the military commander to leave no survivors.

So, according to the Post, when real-time video showed two survivors clinging to wreckage, the operation commander sent another missile to eliminate them. 

The Post claimed to have two sources for this expose. Neither was identified. Such anonymous charges were a familiar characteristic of news coverage during Trump's first term, which he blamed on members of a so-called Deep State opposed to his reforms threatening their political fiefdoms. 

One of the Post's sources was quoted, “The order was to kill everybody.”

Of course, this report immediately and conveniently diverted the topic of fierce public conversation away from the inept Democrat video. The usual sources decried such unnecessary killing, alleging war crimes and the need for prosecution, all conveniently fitting a comfortable anti-Trump agenda.

Conveniently forgotten were Barack Obama’s more than 530 drone attacks executed on alleged terrorist targets in foreign lands, killing hundreds of civilian non-combatants during his presidency.

My RedState colleagues have provided fulsome coverage of this controversy here, here, and here.

Both Hegseth and the administration denied such serious allegations. And, in fact, when two men survived a subsequent attack on another high-speed boat, they were rescued by the U.S. and returned to shore.

On Twitter, Hegseth said:

As usual, the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland. 

As we’ve said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically intended to be “lethal, kinetic strikes.” 

The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people. Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization.

But then media competition kicked in, which is a good thing and can help keep fabricators honest. We just haven't had much of that in this Trump era, when most mainstream outlets adopted groupthink about topics such as Russiagate and Hunter Biden's laptop. 

However, many Americans likely missed the corrective coverage if they weren't combing the Internet for further context and details. In an article carrying four bylines, the New York Times countered the Post's account, saying it had talked separately with five sources, who were not identified. And they reported that Hegseth had given no such order:

Mr. Hegseth, ahead of the Sept. 2 attack, ordered a strike that would kill the people on the boat and destroy the vessel and its purported cargo of drugs.

But each official said Mr. Hegseth’s directive did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile turned out not to fully accomplish all of those things.

And then, revealing how quickly Congress can react if the opportunity for publicity is keen, hearings began on the Hill.

In those closed hearings, Adm. Mitch Bradley, the incident commander, testified that no such kill-everyone order was ever given, and added context that the survivors appeared to be attempting to continue their mission and communicate with other suspected drug boats in the vicinity.

But here’s the problem for news consumers who vote. They have a life to live. People in the news business follow the ins and outs, the twists, omissions, and outright errors of competitors and themselves.

But it takes a very conscientious citizen to devote the time to cross-check several sources on important events, a new news consumption habit that's become necessary with so many sources providing varying accounts. 

Many people tend to get their news episodically. They walk through the living room and hear a piece of the initial sensational report. They’re cooking and catch a White House denial of something. Or their car radio lands on a talk station for a portion of one participant’s outspoken take on the affair.

At one time in modern history, only a handful of trusted information sources existed. Now, there are literally thousands online, all seeking consumer clicks, but not all accurate, honest, or worthy of trust. They produce a cacophony of information that requires thinking, judgment, and patience. 

It's like driving in a snowstorm with your high beams on. So much coming at you all at once. This information blizzard of typically negative news and conflict has even prompted many people to simply drop out of active news tracking.

It comes down to which pieces of information overload you happen to hear or read and which ones you’re inclined to believe. That seems like a rather haphazard process for a nation to make momentous decisions about political leadership.

But maybe that’s the way it’s always been in our nearly 250 years of national existence, even when the volume of information was much smaller. Maybe it’ll all continue to work out. Maybe.