Original sentence: The film received a negative reception by the US media such as Time magazine, which described it as "lopsided and cheerleadery" and stated it lacked any nuance in its worldview, though conceding it had "some inspirational value"
Edited sentence: The film received a negative reception by the US media (which has been almost universally anti-Chavez since he was first elected) such as Time magazine, which described it as "lopsided and cheerleadery" and stated it lacked any nuance in its worldview, though conceding it had "some inspirational value".This is because it contradicts the entire narrative that the media has created in regard to Chavez>  A positive reception would have meant admitting a complete failure to accurately portray the Venezuelan president over the last 10 years