Not...
In ‘Venezuelan media: “It's over!”’ the BBC allows the editor of El Universal to declare unopposed "We have returned once again to democracy!". Perhaps more significantly, in ‘Venezuela's political disarray’ the BBC’s Americas regional editor chose to title a subheading ‘Restoring democracy’. --from the article
You don't seem to understand the difference between advocating a viewpoint--whether "official' or not--and trying to state the facts as objectively as possible. In fact, an "official" statement, especially one being issued in such tumultuous circumstances, should be treated with particular skepticism--if for no other reason than covering the journalist's and the news organizations' asses, so they won't be caught (as they were in this situation) announcing something as fact and the truth turning out to be something else, or worse, crowing about an outcome that turns out not to be true--like that famous Chicago Daily Tribune headline, "Dewey Defeats Truman!" and the famous photo of the real winner, Harry Truman, holding that newspaper up and laughing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_TrumanThe Chicago Daily Tribune was a Republican newspaper. Its bias was revealed by its too early announcement that Dewey won, based in inadequate election returns. And it wasn't just a goof. They persisted printing papers with that headline even after they had indications that they might be wrong. They also predicted a Republican sweep of Congress (which was also wrong). They printed 150,000 copies of the paper with this erroneous news. The journalistic error derived from the political bias of the newspaper. They simply couldn't bring themselves to believe that the voters might overturn THEIR desired outcome.
I have seen this journalistic bias time and again, on Chavez events--throughout our corpo-fascist 'news' media, not just the BBC. They WANT Chavez to lose, and they print all sorts of anti-Chavez crapola, as if they were trying to MAKE him lose, and to smear over, dampen and marginalize the news when he WINS, even when he wins BIG (which is often). They, in short, HATE him, and, by implication, the great majority of Venezuelan voters--the poor, the workers, the leftists.
What we desperately need in our news/opinion media is much more SKEPTICISM. They did a very similar song and dance on the recent Honduran coup, printing lie after lie from the "officials" of the coup government, some of which have not been corrected to this day--such as the lie that President Zelaya was trying to lift his own term limit. It's STILL being repeated. And all they have to do is LOOK at the wording of his constitutional reform proposal to know that it is it WAS NEVER TRUE. Our corpo-fascist 'news' sources haven't printed that short text anywhere, and I suspect that this is not ignorance or error. They've had plenty of time to find out what it said. Yet they constantly repeat this outright lie from "official" sources, without contradiction, and sometimes even without attribution (very common initially).
And I can only conclude that they are not doing journalism any more; they are doing something else--writing fictional narratives that are aimed at creating IMPRESSIONS--the impression that Chavez is a "dictator," the impression that Mel Zelaya was trying to lift his own term limit or had violated some law--these fuzzy, smeared over, out of focus pictures that confuse and brainwash the public and that serve corpo-fascist agendas.
The BBC's triumphant little announcements about Chavez being ousted and "democracy restored" are just one example of a really serious problem in the news our people are fed, which is intended to make impressions on the subconscious mind and NOT to inspire people to think and analyze. It does not deserve the name of journalism.