No, that’s not what I mean.

Encouraging political accountability is a key responsibility of the media in a democracy. These reports help voters, watchdogs, and parliament to exercise their role of holding politicians accountable. Admittedly, this is an imprecise process and this system is not functioning well in the US at the moment. Still, the media must keep (and improve) reporting on items where political accountability comes into play.

In this case it’s a clear cut case of breathing campaign promises. It’s important to report on this because it’s relevant to those who voted Trump into office.

The media should also report on the consequences of those strikes, the human suffering, the destabilisation that it causes etc. However, this might not be information that Trump voters find relevant. However wrong this may be.

It’s fine if you’re arguing that this angle is being underreported by Salon and other US based media. I expect this could well be that this is the case, but I don’t know as I don’t live there. All I’m saying is that the editorial choice not to do so in the same article.

It’s fulfilling its role as media of publishing information that would ordinarily be used for accountability: Trump is doing something else than he promised he would.

Not every article has scope to show the human consequences behind decisions.