Even before the April 2002 coup, many owners, managers, and commentators working for the five major private mainstream television networks and largest mainstream newspapers had stated their opposition to Chávez's policies. These media outlets have accused the Chávez administration of intimidating their journalists using specially dispatched gangs. Chávez in turn alleges that the owners of these networks have primary allegiance not to Venezuela but to the United States, and that they seek the advancement of neoliberalism via corporate propaganda. Private media's most prominent political commentators have reported that, among other things, Chávez is mentally ill and that he harbors a "sexual obsession with Castro".
According to Greg Grandin, professor of Latin American history at New York University, "[The Venezuelan] media is chronically obsessed with Chávez, and critical in a way that would be completely alien for most US observers." One late Venezuelan journalist, Alberto Garrido, was often quoted in North American press and was considered an expert on the revolutionary theory of Chávez. After the media-backed 2002 coup attempt, Venezuela passed 'social responsibility' legislation regulating the media but has largely declined to enforce it.
Private media coverage of the 11–14 April coup only exacerbated these tensions. On 11 April, the anti-government march, the message "remove Chávez", and the call to redirect the march to the presidential palace in Milaflores, were "widely announced, promoted, and covered by private television channels, whose explicit support for the opposition became evident." A steady stream of unpaid ads asked Venezuelans to participate in the insurrection.
In an attempt to keep order, the government invoked Article 192 of the telecommunications law more than thirty times during the days preceding and on the day of the coup. The Article enables the government to coopt regular programming for 15 to 20 minutes to broadcast its own views and position.
The private TV stations circumvented the rule by showing Chávez's addresses and the protest simultaneously, via a split-screen presentation. On the first morning after the 2002 coup, many of the new Carmona government's highest-ranking members appeared on-air to offer their appreciation to the private media for their support. Once the counter-coup was launched by Chavistas and loyalist elements of the Palace Guard, these five stations censored any reporting on the events. Private media owners and managers instead chose to broadcast classic films and sitcom reruns.
After RCTV lost its terrestrial broadcast licence in 2007, private television media remained opposed to the Chavez government, but in most cases moderated that opposition by presenting more government spokesmen; Globovision is now perhaps the most vocally and stridently anti-Chavez television station. The Venezuelan Government proceeded to file a complaint against Globovision with the Attorney General Office on this matter.
In 2009, Venezuela's telecommunications regulator launched an investigation into the Globovisión network, after it used an earthquake as an opportunity to attack the government. The government said Globovision was illegally inciting fear and violated the public's right to access critical information in a time of crisis, in particular by claiming that Venezuelan institutions were unaware of the quake and that the only information was available from the US (although in fact the US data had come from Venezuela’s National Seismological Institute). The Director of Globovision, who intervened personally on air, also falsely claimed to have been unable to reach Venezuelan authorities. Chávez demanded sanctions against Globovisión, calling station director Alberto Federico Ravell "a crazy man with a cannon". This action was criticized by two officials who monitor freedom of speech, Frank La Rue of the United Nations and Catalina Botero of the OAS. Globovision was fined $4.1m in 2009, for illegal broadcasting on unauthorized microwaves and unpaid taxes from the years 2002-2003 on political advertising airtime donated by Globovision.  Venezuela still has a wide variety of newspapers and radio stations that are critical of Chavez.
In 2001, Chavez turned Aló Presidente from a radio show to a full-fledged live, unscripted, television show on public-owned media that ran during all hours of the day promoting the Bolivarian Revolution. The show aired every Sunday, depicting Chávez (wearing red, the color of the revolution) as the charismatic leader, passionate about the well being of his country. Many Venezuelan's tune in because Mr. Chávez is known for unveiling new financial assistance packages every weekend. Since 1999, President Chávez spent an average 40 hours a week on television. The show has been considered the principal link between the Venezuelan government and its citizens, and is a source of information for both official and opposition media and at international level. The show featured Chávez addressing topics of the day, taking phone calls from the audience, and touring locations where government social welfare programs were active.
On 11 June 2009 President Chavez inaugurated a "theoretical" edition of his show, in which he wanted to promote "the study, reading and deepening of the revolutionary ideals" in order to strengthen socialism. This program airs on Thursday afternoon.
|This section needs additional citations for verification. (May 2014)|
The Venezuelan government has been, since after the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt grown and diversified its media, in order to try to combat the "media terrorism that's committed by the private media". This has been considered by the opposition to Chavez as an attempt to achieve hegemony in the communication in the country.
In 2005, the Venezuelan government announced the joint creation of teleSUR with several other countries. teleSUR is a proposed pan-Latin American news network that seeks to challenge the present "domination" of Latin American television news by U.S.-based CNN en Español and Univisión. According to the BBC, US politicians have said TeleSUR is a propaganda tool for Chávez.
||The neutrality of this section is disputed. (May 2014)|
Media outlets in the United States, and in other parts of the world, have consistently suggested that Hugo Chávez is a "dictator" or is "headed in that direction" in spite of the fact that he and his party have won numerous national elections certified by international observers, and confirmed by independent international polling companies.
The media watchdog FAIR has criticized the New York Times' coverage of Chavez' administration, for instance for its 25 February 2007 article titled "Venezuela Spending on Arms Soars to World’s Top Ranks" . FAIR media watchdog reported that the article did not indicate that the source of this claim came from the USAID governmental organization (which has been accused of being involved in the 2002 failed coup against Chavez ). Furthermore, it stated that
"The article also used a confusing and highly misleading measure of arms expenditures. When it uses the phrase "Venezuela's arms spending," it does not mean the amount Venezuela spends on arms, but the amount that it spends buying arms from other countries. If one is interested in the military threat posed by a particular country, its total spending on its military is a more relevant statistic... In Latin America, according to figures compiled by the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Argentina spends almost twice as much on its military as Venezuela, Colombia spends more than three times as much, and Brazil spends about 12 times as much... The United States, as the world's biggest military power, has a military budget roughly 500 times the size of Venezuela. None of this crucial context made it into Romero's piece, though the article does note, in the 19th of 26 paragraphs, that Brazil's army is far larger than Venezuela's... But the article may be inaccurate as well as misleading... The Times' numbers on Venezuelan military spending don't seem to add up... " 
On 13 March 2007 the Ontario Press Council upheld a complaint that a series of articles published in the Toronto Star in May 2006 lacked balance due to the absence of comment from Venezuelan government representatives and did not attribute figures about murder rate, poverty and unemployment to opposition sources.
In 2006, President Chávez announced that the terrestrial broadcast license for RCTV—Venezuela's second largest TV channel—would not be renewed. The channel's terrestrial broadcasts ended on 28 May 2007 and were replaced with a state network. RCTV is accused of supporting the coup against Chávez in April 2002, and the oil strike in 2002-2003. Also, it has been accused by the government of violating the Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television. The director of the station, Marcel Granier, denies taking part in the coup. This action has been condemned by a multitude of international organizations. However, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) questioned whether, in the event a television station openly supported and collaborated with coup leaders, the station in question would not be subject to even more serious consequences in the United States or any other Western nation. In a poll conducted by Datanalisis, almost 70 percent of Venezuelans polled opposed the shut-down, but most cited the loss of their favorite soap operas rather than concerns about limits on freedom of expression.
In May 2007, international media coverage of the events surrounding the RCTV's licence revocation almost universally reported it as a "shut down" or "closure" of an "independent" voice, when, in fact, RCTV was only revoked of its licence and equipment to broadcast on national airwaves but continues to broadcast by cable and satellite. The events were given wide coverage in the international media, arguably creating the image that there was widespread chaos and unrest in the country, when most of the protests only took place in the major cities. Many media outlets in the United States portrayed the government decision to not renew the broadcast license as a "dictatorial" act that was "muzzling opposition voices" and "attacking the media." Fox News in the United States gave especially distorted coverage of the events, claiming that Hugo Chávez had "shut down the media all across the country" when in reality RCTV was the only channel to lose its broadcast license. Many other opposition media outlets continue to operate in Venezuela, including the major newspapers and TV channels, making up the clear majority of the Venezuelan media.
In subsequent international coverage of Venezuelan media, the RCTV licence episode is sometimes presented accurately, at other times mischaracterised as above - for example AFP declared in June 2009 that "The government refused to renew RCTV's license in May 2007 because of its critical news coverage."
|This section needs additional citations for verification. (May 2014)|
In December 2007, Venezuela held a national vote on a proposed constitutional reform that would have made a large number of changes to the Venezuelan political structure. Among the proposed changes was extending the term limits to three. A change that would have allowed Hugo Chávez to run for reelection for the third time in 2012 when his current term ends. While there are many countries in the world that do not have term limits for national leaders including the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Germany, and others (though most of these are parliamentary democracies rather than a presidential democracy, like Venezuela), the constitutional reform in Venezuela was widely reported in international media as a change that would "make Chavez president for life.". Media outlets called the reform a "power grab" on the part of Chávez, and presented the image of a country "heading toward dictatorship".