which isn’t exactly clear of bias.

that is why I said

you are a child if you think like that

I don't think you should expect any reporting to be clear of bias, they link dozens of sources throughout the article each with it's own set of biases, do you really need to link a source from every perspective to not disparage them for not being "clear of bias". And I think they quite clearly elaborate why they have included the two Venezuelanalysis articles in the following.

However, Washington’s blockade ensured that the elections would never be free and fair. As the main factor driving economic hardship and migration, US sanctions meant Venezuelans headed to the polls with a gun to their heads, not unlike Nicaraguans in 1990.

It is the height of hypocrisy for US officials and their corporate media stenographers to claim the right to arbitrate other sovereign nations’ democratic legitimacy, even as they advance fascism at home and genocidal war across the globe. That sectors of the Western “compatible left” echo Stephens and his ilk, caricaturing the Maduro government as a “corrupt” and “repressive” regime, is unfortunate but not surprising (Ebb, 10/3/24).

The core racial assumption, going back to the 19th century, is that Global South states that refuse to bow to Western imperialist diktat constitute “tropical despotisms” to be toppled in a never-ending “civilizing mission,” with its anti-Communist, “war on terror” and neo-Orientalist mutations.

especially with

It is the height of hypocrisy for US officials and their corporate media stenographers to claim the right to arbitrate other sovereign nations’ democratic legitimacy, even as they advance fascism at home and genocidal war across the globe

The author is rejecting the premise of the US and other countries like the UK to "claim the right to arbitrate other sovereign nations’ democratic legitimacy" So why would they link articles like the ones you linked when the author is clearly saying they don't believe in the premise.