The article you are quoting from, though, calls the 1992 uprising led by Chávez an attempted "coup" (for "coup d'etat") and this, simply, is not accurate by widely accepted historical and political terms.

Let's consult Dictionary.com...

According to The American Heritage Dictionary, a coup d'etat is:

coup d'é·tat    
n. pl. coups d'état (k) or coup d'états (d-täz)

The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.

Interestingly, one of the most frequent disparaging complaints about Chávez by the wealthy (or the wannabe wealthy) is that "he only reached the rank of lieutenant." He was not a member of military command or "authority." He led a civilian-military-student revolt, in 1992, against his own commanding officers.

There is a better, more precise word, for what occured in 1992. Let's consult Dictionary.com again...

Let's look at the dictionary definition for the word "mutiny":

mu·ti·ny    
n. pl. mu·ti·nies

Open rebellion against constituted authority, especially rebellion of sailors against superior officers.

What occured in 1992 was an attempted mutiny, and not an attempted coup.

Words are important, and precision in words even more so. A coup is what was attempted, in 2002, against Chávez, by the high command of the Venezuelan military. (And the lower level sailors and soldiers, again, fought against them, as in 1992.)

They can call Chávez a mutineer, but not a coup-monger. And it's vital to not confuse the two: one rebels against authority, the other imposes authority from above.

The rest of your point - about there having been no press freedom under the war criminal Carlos Andrés Pérez - is, of course, brilliant!