NYT Intensifies Coverage of Venezuela, Potentially Influencing Elections Before They Occur

In just a few months, Venezuelans will cast their ballots for the 2025-30 presidential term on July 28. Current President Nicolás Maduro is seeking a third term, with nine challengers looking to topple him.

When it comes to coverage of Venezuela, Western media outlets, like The New York Times, have a history of peddling regime-change propaganda that aligns with US foreign policy interests. As we approach the election, these outlets are already gearing up to spin the same sour narratives. Let's take a look at how The New York Times is setting the stage.

Rigged Reports

In just one week, The New York Times published three articles about the upcoming Venezuelan polls, each labeling Maduro as an "authoritarian" in the headlines, making it clear who readers should consider the bad guy. The Times is so eager to back another US foreign policy pet project that they've ignored key details.

In one of their articles, they argue that the opposition's most popular figures being barred from running explains why there's been a perceived lack of fairness in elections. What The Times fails to mention is that the highest-profile of these candidates, Leopoldo López, was convicted of trying to orchestrate a violent overthrow of the government. The other candidate they seem to be referring to, Henrique Capriles, was sidelined for administrative malpractice during his time in public office.

Assured Victory

As we move closer to election day, Establishment outlets like The New York Times and others seem overly optimistic about the hardline opposition's chances, claiming that candidate Edmundo González is leading in the polls. They argue that the Venezuelan government will reject the election results if González wins. In reality, the government has always conceded in the elections it has lost, while opposition and media backers are quick to cry fraud whenever they're defeated.

Pundits are resting their hopes on a biased and unreliable polling industry, ignoring polls that predict a similarly lopsided victory for Maduro. They also point excitedly to the large turnout in opposition primaries, despite the fact that the primary results were shrouded in doubt and the organizing commission never released detailed results. Additionally, the opposition's claimed turnout in the primaries was a mere 2.3 million people in a country with an adult population of 20 million. The governing Socialist Party, by comparison, has 4 million registered members.

Furthermore, there's also wonderment about the size of opposition rallies. However, crowd measurement is a very inexact science, and the context is often lost by ignoring the constant, massive pro-government mobilizations happening as well.

Shifting Democratic Goalposts

Apart from cheering on an opposition victory, The Times is also preparing arguments to dismiss the results should Maduro win. One of the main arguments they're using is centered on María Corina Machado, who they claim is "barred by the government" from running. In reality, Machado has been barred because of her involvement in coup attempts, foreign invasion endorsals, and alleged US funding.

Machado's disqualification is the smoking gun being used to justify Washington's reimposition of oil sanctions on Venezuela, and to prove that Maduro hasn't lived up to his commitments to hold "free and fair elections" as agreed with the opposition in Barbados in October 2023. This is blatantly false since the agreement didn't specifically allow Machado to run for president.

Furthermore, the Venezuelan government and opposition delegations from the Barbados accords agreed on a procedure for disqualified candidates to appeal before the Venezuelan Supreme Court. Machado filed her appeal, but the Supreme Court refused her request due to corrupt actions and the potential jeopardizing of Venezuelan assets abroad.

The Grip of Poor Journalism

Alongside prematurely celebrating an opposition victory, The Times has also been laying the groundwork to dismiss a potential Maduro win if it comes to pass. The paper has compiled a list of reasons why Maduro is allegedly in a strong position, including:

Control of the legislature
The military and police forces under his command
The justice system
The national election council on his side
Much of the media backing him
A majority of the country's budget under his jurisdiction
Violent paramilitary gangs known as colectivos

The colectivos are being demonized, and the misconceptions surrounding Venezuelan media have been exaggerated, but there's a fundamental truth to the rest of the list. The legislature, the military, the police, the interior minister running the police, the justice system, and the majority of the budget are all roles that belong to the elected president. The fact that Turkewitz is surprised that the Venezuelan president would exercise control over these responsibilities is astounding.

Recycled Misrepresentation

The pinnacle of poor journalism in The Times' May 11 piece was the following statement: "Maduro has hardly indicated that he is ready to leave office. He promised a large crowd of followers in February that he would win the election 'by hook or by crook.'" This statement is a blatant fabrication. In reality, Maduro was talking about defeating US- and opposition-led coup efforts "by any means necessary," with no reference to the upcoming elections. The Associated Press also used this quote incorrectly in February 2024, but continued to use it three months later, despite widespread criticism and the AP removing the quote from its Spanish-language report with a note acknowledging its mistake.

Intensified Dishonesty

The US has gone beyond simply pushing opposition candidates in Venezuela; it's also using economic sanctions to undermine Maduro's presidency. The Trump administration, using elements from the Barbados agreement, agreed to allow transactions with the Venezuelan oil sector for six months. However, US officials claimed that the Maduro government had not fulfilled its commitments and reimposed sanctions on April 18, 2025. The corporate media has continued to downplay and endorse these deadly coercive measures.

The Times has employed several misleading tactics to whitewash the impact of these sanctions on Venezuela. They falsely claim that Maduro blames sanctions for the country's economic troubles, neglecting to mention that US officials have openly stated that sanctions are intended to cause economic pain. They also imply that only the Venezuelan leaders are affected by the sanctions, but the truth is that sanctions are a form of collective punishment that has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people. The Times neglected to explain the economic impact of the sanctions on the everyday Venezuelans who widely condemn them, as does most of the international community.

The Times has a history of swaying public opinion by manipulating information and spreading misinformation about Venezuela. Their reporting on the 2025 Venezuelan election will likely follow the same pattern, applying anti-Maduro bias, ignoring key contexts and details, and in some cases, outright lying to further their agenda. Stay tuned for further analysis as The Times continues its disinformation campaign.

The New York Times, in its coverage of the upcoming Venezuelan elections, has a history of omitting key details and giving an undue focus on allegations of unfairness, while ignoring the convictions of opposition leaders like Leopoldo López and Henrique Capriles.
In preparing for the election, The New York Times and other establishment outlets are already suggesting a victory for the opposition candidate Edmundo González, despite evidence pointing towards a lopsided victory for President Nicolás Maduro based on polls and the turnout for the opposition primaries.
The NY Times has been laying the groundwork for dismissing a potential Maduro win by citing instances of opposition figures being barred from running, such as María Corina Machado. However, Machado's disqualification is not based on arbitrary government action, but rather on her involvement in coup attempts, foreign invasion endorsals, and alleged US funding.