> I'm sorry, but this is whataboutism in its full glory.
Dismissing every argument with whataboutism seems to be flavour of the day, even when it is not whataboutism.
I lived during most of the period discussed by the GP. Everything from the Bay of Pigs to supporting the Shah to Iran Contra to the invasion of Grenada was well covered and well criticized in the US press. And the US invasion of Iraq was highly criticized in the US press even as the US government was facing an uphill battle to convince the world that it was proper by brandishing fake bottles of poison at the UN.
The US has done a lot of bad stuff. But claiming that the press just went along with it is historical revisionism, full stop.
That's even ignoring the fact that the Press itself is a propaganda tool for the US military-industrial complex, while steeping in biases of its own.
You're welcome to live in your own bubble of facts.
I'm sorry, but this is whataboutism in its full glory.
The US has a free press, and its unfortunate history of overthrowing or supporting governments was and is well documented by the press and by historians in the United States. This documentation and publication resulted in many public scandals, lawsuits, and public intrigue, particularly through the 1960s to 1980s when the US's activities in this regard were perhaps that their peak. The resulting history is taught in universities and in elementary schools across the USA.
Now, there are well-known political parties or other people with a vested interest in spinning things in their own way, as is the case in any country, but if you think the United States press is anything like the press in Russia, or that its public is anywhere as ignorant of the facts as the public in Russia and similar countries, or if you felt you were unaware of the US history in this regard while it was going on, then you perhaps led a sheltered life. But it wasn't for lack of trying on part of the US press.