President Zelensky’s announcement about the “massive Russian attack” on Kyiv, which reportedly involved 68 missiles and 351 strike drones, has been met with a predictable wave of coverage from the likes of CNN and MSNBC. You’d think they’d dedicate a segment to truly unpacking the ramifications of such attacks, but no—it’s more about pushing emotional narratives than dissecting military strategies. Why? Because those networks thrive on fear and uncertainty, which drives their ratings and keeps their viewers glued to their screens.

Take a look at Fox News. Instead of delivering a nuanced discussion on defense strategies or the geopolitical implications, they’ve turned this into a bifurcated storyline: the heroes versus the villains. This kind of simplistic framing serves their audience well, but it stifles meaningful discourse about what’s actually happening on the ground—and conveniently sidesteps questions about where all this financial aid is really going.

Corporate media is addicted to sensationalism, often glossing over the deeper issues at play. Who benefits from these attacks? Who benefits from this endless cycle of violence? Yet, we see reporters frothing at the mouth to call Putin a tyrant while systematically avoiding their own country’s involvement in this conflict. This kind of selective outrage is a hallmark of today’s journalism—where the narrative is dictated by networks rather than facts.

In the end, we’ve got to ask ourselves: are we getting the full story, or just a carefully edited version that serves a preferred narrative? Don’t be fooled by the flashy headlines; it’s time to dig deeper and question everything.