The exact timeline is not the point. The point is that the two most venerated American newspapers received information that the US was about to do something blatantly illegal and decided not to report this. But we’ve known for a long time that both of them (and all major media outlets in the US) are equivalent to state media anyway, so it’s not surprising.
Sure if I had to bet, neither publication would report it in advance. But for the sake of argument:
2 days - plenty of time to spread the news cycle, form public debate, or debate in Congress. Government has to make a decision
30 minutes - troops in the air, if any US soldiers get killed and/or the mission fails perception will be that the blood is on the publication’s hands, along with calls for treason charges.
Again I doubt they’re reporting, but exact timeline does impact how I view their decision not to report.
I see your point but still think you’re choosing the most charitable interpretation. I choose not to be charitable to two news giants who have helped provide support and cover for starting multiple disastrous wars of aggression that killed countless people.
They said it themselves, you can look it up, but here’s a source
OP said “days before” - the reporting is “shortly before” with an unspecified timeline.
The exact timeline is not the point. The point is that the two most venerated American newspapers received information that the US was about to do something blatantly illegal and decided not to report this. But we’ve known for a long time that both of them (and all major media outlets in the US) are equivalent to state media anyway, so it’s not surprising.
Sure if I had to bet, neither publication would report it in advance. But for the sake of argument: 2 days - plenty of time to spread the news cycle, form public debate, or debate in Congress. Government has to make a decision
30 minutes - troops in the air, if any US soldiers get killed and/or the mission fails perception will be that the blood is on the publication’s hands, along with calls for treason charges.
Again I doubt they’re reporting, but exact timeline does impact how I view their decision not to report.
I see your point but still think you’re choosing the most charitable interpretation. I choose not to be charitable to two news giants who have helped provide support and cover for starting multiple disastrous wars of aggression that killed countless people.
Thanks!