First and foremost. You mentioned "links from the UN itself that comprehensively debunk" what the other commenter was saying. After searching the UN site, I gave you an opportunity to produce them. Where are they?
> There is no need to speculate about bias.
I'm not really speculating as much as making an explicit assertion.
> What is a more credible source?
IMO, Anything at the bottom of the wikipedia article would qualify as more credible than a single person's opinion on a video blog channel. A video blog channel that has an obvious narrative. I mean... did you watch the video? Around half of it cuts away from the interview to present talking points and infographics.
It's also not enough to simply state that all of these media outlets and nations (along with millions of people inside Venezuela itself) are propagandists with an agenda. That's just FUD.
> UN reports are routinely used by the US, Europe, the global media and many others as credible sources.
The UN hasn't investigated the election, much less released a report on the topic.
> Given there is a history of illegal regime change
And given the overwhelming evidence of foul play in the Venezuelan election, those genuinely concerned about human rights and democracy should be extremely wary of those seeking to downplay the severity of the events.