And when the press woke up, Chavismo was still there.

After the initial shock, in which newspapers barely explained the basic, factual elements of the earthquake unleashed by Trump's unilateral action, more interesting pieces are now beginning to appear. Paradoxically, because they weren't essential, they end up being the key ones (I hope the contradiction is clear), or at least those that reveal a newspaper's perspective. I was thinking about this while reading this front-page headline in The Country"Empty streets and silence in a desolate Caracas." When Trump made his incursion—which would have warranted different terminology had it been carried out by Putin—some media outlets discreetly rubbed their hands together, believing that their American friend would favor (in the name of democracy!) the fall of Chavismo. But something was amiss in that hope: the clamor in the streets that Spanish newspaper readers would have anticipated, based on coverage in recent years in which the opposition has been systematically praised, was not materializing. I'm aware that fear of repression from a dictatorial regime has something to do with it, but I believe that this silence in the streets compels the Spanish media to engage in self-criticism.

In fact, in the last few hours we've seen some headlines that tried to suggest there was a popular anti-Chavista wave that would eventually seize power. But it was a trap: they were referring only to the reactions of the diaspora, which should never, anywhere, be confused with those who have remained. In The Country The same: "Thousands of Venezuelans celebrate Maduro's capture in Puerta del Sol: 'This government has already fallen.'" Hopefully, Venezuela will find the path to a full democracy that respects the ballot box. But the media should count to ten, or ten thousand, before suggesting that Trump will be the architect of this. As for the Nobel Peace Prize, ahem, we'll have to wait.