You're not necessarily wrong, but, example?
Taking a look at
https://www.cnn.com/politics, at this particular moment, half of the top stories are about the Jan 6 riot, which of course is characterized as the US Capitol insurrection. All but one of those stories, without even reading beyond the headline, are trying to tie Republicans to it. It's a concerted effort to say "look at this bad thing and these bad Republicans who all support this bad thing." CNN does that all the time. But that's Democrats vs Republicans, which I know is the point, and left vs right is a consequence of the partisan nonsense, so let's pick something talking about policy.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/28/politics/texas-legislature-politics/index.html
Starting with the headline, the bias is already there. "Conservative Agenda Dominates"; There are lots of words they could have used in place of agenda, but they chose the version often used with a negative connotation, "they have an
agenda". There are lots of words to describe winning, but they went with "dominates", a decidedly aggressive word. Then to describe the Democratic positions, they describe is as "Hopes", a purely positive word. They could have just as well said "Conservative priorities prevail, despite Democratic challenge in Texas", which would be equally awful in one sense because neither headline is particularly informative, but at least it would take the bias out of it.
And then the article itself, after a lead in about how Democrats had hoped to make gains in Texas, is a piece all about how the Texas legislature is moving to the right. They briefly mention a few policies, abortion restrictions/gun rights/not teaching CRT, never giving any justification for how those policies are any more conservative than they've ever been in Texas. And like, they've got this "shifting to the right" narrative set up before they put down a single word for the article, because they're interviewing people at an event and explicitly asking them if they feel Texas Republicans are going to far to the right. Again, no relative comparison to justify the claim. Interview a Democrat, "We've just swung totally to the right". Stopping for a moment,
looking at things done lately in the Texas legislature, skimming past all the bills congratulating or memorializing someone, we've got something about insurance claims from ice storms, a bill letting physical therapists do more without referral, a minor change to the language on filing fees to get on election ballots, publicly recognizing a genocide, a bill regulating pharmacy benefit managers, a thing allowing charity raffles at rodeos, yada yada yada. Not really any reason to see all that as anything other than business as usual, hardly enough to justify "It's been like steamrolling of all these red meat wedge issues and not focused on what we came in here to deal with." But that's what they see as fit to print.
It's not subtle what they're doing there. They characterize Republicans, who generally speaking could not stand more still on most policies, as pushing further to the right. Why? They want the Democrats at the center and Republicans at the fringe. To CNN, the Democratic Party is the center of the overton window, which means half of that window belongs to people left of the Democrats. That's not done to benefit someone like you, but it does, and that's why you do it too. Just like CNN, you push the notion that Democrats are centrists, because you're trying to pull your position into the window of acceptable opinions. The goal is to slide the whole discourse one step to the side, where the right becomes far-right, the center-right Republicans become the right, centrists become center-right, the center-left Democrats become the center, the general left becomes center left, and far-left opinions sneak their way into the window of acceptable discourse. CNN does it because they want Democrats to own the center, but it still benefits the far-left, who get to pretend to be totally reasonable based on the same paradigm.
www.allsides.com
en.wikipedia.org
