Good ? how could anyone know....seems to lack spin,,,straight reporting......story seems to be missing from most MSM..Google news has not a peep from the sources of record! i wonder why....are they sleeping or is it that they don't like the news? (DON'T COVER IT AND IT WILL GO AWAY)

This is a straight forward and reasonably detailed report of Chavez's latest accusations against the US and his actions following Bolivia's expulsion of the US ambassador. While the report is principally a report of facts, it does contain a little speculation as to Chavez's motives for his latest actions.

Uses the term "socialist revolution" in the very first sentence without support for that claim. I think it is necessary to back that up with a mention of Chavez' Bolivarian revolution. This article has all the usual context on the story including Russia/Venezuela relations, but not much depth on those elements. While a good number of sources are named, none from the U.S. are.

This is well reported. However, it fails on context. There is no mention of the 2002 coup attempt against Chavez. The US supported that attempt. Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

The Guardian report has more information than the AP report on the same subject.

This is typical "western" media coverage of the growing tide of anti-U.S. movement in Latin America whose proponents are labelled "radical leftist governments", implying that a superpower such as the U.S., trying to unseat these governments are anything but "radical". The author tries to appear evenhanded but his bias is shown by disputing Chavez's claims of U.S. meddling but not disputing the U.S. claim that it did not.