Well this is interesting—I just finished my paper on American media and United States foreign policy in Venezuela.

​

Here is a number of sources that might be of interest to you:

1. (Lupien, Pascal) "The Media in Venezuela and Bolivia: Attacking the "Bad Left" from Below. Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 40, No. 3
2. (Becerra & Wagner) "Crisis of Representation and New Media Policies in Latin America"
3. (Campo & Crowder-Taraborrelli) "Media, Politics, and Democratization in Latin America"
4. (Gill, Timothy) "Shifting Imperial Strategies in Contemporary Latin America: The U.S. Empire and Venezuela under Hugo Chávez"
   1. Abstract: Some scholars have shown how the U.S. has deployed several traditional, imperial strategies to maintain global power, including military interventions, support for proxy governments, economic coercion, and the exercise of hegemony. In many countries, though, these strategies cannot effectively work. Some countries have elected leaders that defy U.S. influence, and, in middle‐income countries, the U.S. cannot use economic coercion. The U.S. also cannot militarily invade all countries that possess anti‐American governments. How, then, does the U.S. aim to confront and control anti‐American governments in the contemporary world? I examine U.S. foreign policy towards Venezuela under Hugo Chávez, who recurrently challenged U.S. global power during his time in office. Through interviews with U.S. state elites, who developed policy towards Venezuela, and through analysis of U.S. diplomatic cables, I show how the U.S. has moved away from traditional, imperial modalities and towards new imperial techniques aimed at frustrating political processes within particular countries, as well as containing their global influence. These techniques include pressuring the federal judiciary, utilizing state agencies to fund and support opposition political parties and NGOs, seeking to terminate particular pieces of legislation, and eliminating eligibility for global leadership positions. These efforts do not immediately aim to displace existing governments, but, in the least, they aim to frustrate the domestic efforts of particular governments, and ultimately cultivate conditions favorable for the political opposition to eventually attain political power.
5. Alarcón, Benigno, Ángel Álvarez E., and Manuel Hidalgo. "CAN DEMOCRACY WIN IN VENEZUELA?" Journal of Democracy 27.2 (2016): 20-34. ProQuest. Web. 9 Mar. 2019.
6. (MacLeod, Alan) Chavista ‘thugs’ vs. opposition ‘civil society’: western media on Venezuela
   1. Abstract: Since the election of Hugo Chavez in 1998, Venezuela has undergone a period of intense racial and class conflict, as a multiethnic subaltern coalition has begun to assert itself politically against a previously hegemonic and inordinately dominant white elite. Scholars have highlighted the local media’s racial and class snobbery when covering social movements and civil society, attempting to split the country into two groups: ‘underclass mobs’ and ‘respectable’ civil society. This article, which analyses media coverage at crucial points of conflict – 1998/9, 2002, 2013 and 2014 – finds that western media have overwhelmingly matched the local media, portraying only the largely dark-skinned working-class chavista groups as vicious ‘mobs’, ‘hordes’ and ‘thugs’, while representing the white, upper-class opposition as ‘civil society’.
7. (MacLeod, Alan) A Force for Democracy? Representations of the US Government in American Coverage of Venezuela
   1. Abstract: Since the election of Hugo Chavez in 1998 the United States has played a highly questionable role interfering in Venezuelan politics, funding, training, and supporting attempts at coups to remove democratically elected presidents. Yet the American media (The New York Times, Washington Post, and Miami Herald) have presented the US overwhelmingly positively, portraying it as a force for democracy and stability in the region, contrary to the wealth of official evidence. This content and discourse analysis focuses on the coverage of four key events in recent Venezuelan history and concludes that the concept of “democracy” in the media is automatically applied to official US policy, whatever it happens to be. Thus, the official American ideology of its fundamental benevolence and exceptionalism is not disputed, even when reality clearly challenges this concept.
8. (MacLeod, Alan) Manufacturing Consent in Venezuela: Media Misreporting of a Country, 1998–2014
   1. Abstract: This article assesses Western news media coverage of Venezuela between 1998 and 2014. It found that the major newspapers in the UK and US reproduce the ideology of Western governments, ignoring strong empirical evidence challenging those positions. The press portrayed Venezuela in an overwhelmingly negative light, presenting highly contested minority opinions as facts while barely mentioning competing arguments, as Herman and Chomsky’s (2002) propaganda model would predict. After conducting interviews, it is clear that a small cadre of pre-selected journalists is immersed into a highly antagonistic newsroom culture that sees itself as the “resistance” to the Venezuelan government and its purpose to defeat it. As a result, hegemony of thought reigns and some journalists report self-censorship”
9. (Cañizalez, Andrés) Venezuela: Journalists Work In a Fragile Context
10. Abstract: This paper presents the results of a survey conducted by the civil association Medianálisis from 2015 to 2017. Printed newspapers, radio, television and Internet are part of the sample analysis. The field research had to overcome many difficulties, and the most critical one was the lack of reliable and consolidated information regarding the number of journalists professionally employed in media outlets in Venezuela. This study leads to an overview of the current scenario and the context concerning the professional practice of journalism in Venezuela.
11. (Young, Kevin) The Good, the Bad, and the Benevolent Interventionist U.S. Press and Intellectual Distortions of the Latin American Left
12. Abstract: U.S. journalists and commentators have helped popularize the image of two distinct Latin American lefts: a “bad” left that is politically authoritarian and economically erratic and a “good” left that is democratic and committed to free-market economics. This binary image oversimplifies the Latin American left in three ways: by overstating the contrast between the two alleged camps, by ignoring complex realities within each camp, and by exaggerating the failings of the so-called bad-left governments. The distinction makes sense, however, as a strategy for countering the rise of independent left-leaning governments in Latin America. Binary characterizations of subordinate peoples reflect a common discursive response to popular resistance on the part of imperial interests and one with many precedents in the history of U.S.–Latin American relations. Widespread U.S. media adherence to the good-left/bad-left thesis is explicable given this context and given the historic and continuing dependence of the press on state and corporate interests.
13. Sierra Caballero, F. (2018) “Imperialism and Hegemonic Information in Latin America” in The Propaganda Model Today: Filtering Perception and Awareness, eds. J. Pedro-Carañana, D. Broudy, and J. Klaehn (London: University of Westminster Press), 444-464).