There's a big difference between not reporting on desperate social conditions and supporting the Maduro regime. Those are not the same thing. News organizations try to stay away from advocacy journalism. There are lots of countries around the world that are in similar dire straits and get no coverage from major media outlets. It's not unlike corporate radio only focusing on four main genres of music. Don't mistake that as being dislike for lesser known genres. My old boss always said just because his radio stations play U2 doesn't mean he can't listen to Errol Garner on his own time. Same thing with news coverage of Venezuela.
It's beyond that. Other than a couple of African nations that have descended into anarchy or tribal rivalries, I can't think of a more desperate nation than Venezuela.
In the current situation, they have nearly no testing, hospitals that don't have masks or even disinfectants, prisons with almost total infection and an apparent casualty rate that may indeed be the highest in the world. But since they don't have any way to test over 90% of the ill, they can't attribute deaths to the disease; the government is not reporting the "undocumented" deaths.
The problem with totalitarian regimes, whether dictatorships or single party systems, is that they are free to make their own rules. We hear what they make up.
Yesterday, a party partisan in the US compared the US infection rate to a Latin American nation that had a lower rate. What they did not take into account was that the nation had tested less than 10% of the test level of the US.
This is the sort of thing I first noted 55 years ago in Ecuador when a local event was reported in the world press. Only the things the reporter or news organization felt were interesting were reported to the extent that the report had only minimal similarity to actual events.