Newsmax and OAN are notorious for extremely slanted coverage.
The Guardian has a slant, but nearly every news outlet will have some slant, either by coverage or through omission. But it's certainly a lot worse at Newsmax and OAN.
I love The Guardian, it's the closest to my views but it most it definitely has a slant. I don't mind that. It's news is newsy and it's commentary is openly left wingish.
Yup, its nickname ("Grauniad") may be about its historically awful proofreading but it's just as politically off-centre as say the Daily Telegraph ("Torygraph") which gets an explicit accusation of political bias right in the nickname.
Every publication is going to have at least editorial bias in what opinions get written, and what stories are covered, at all or in greater profile.
Private Eye - a famous British satirical magazine - has an entire section ("Street of Shame" referring to Fleet Street) about the worst of this (e.g. newspapers taking long term advertiser money and then conspicuously failing to mention grave problems at the advertised business), but it too has its share of blind spots, most famously it took Wakefield's side on the MMR vaccine claims long after mainstream opinion had shifted to focus on the apparent abuse and profiteering by Wakefield, and even after he was struck off it continued to slow walk any suggestion that its coverage had been wrong or misleading. Its coverage for the present pandemic has been... less than stellar also, except in the sense that it criticises the government for doing a bad job, an open goal sometimes missed at a few of the most right-wing papers.
> I love The Guardian, it's the closest to my views but it most it definitely has a slant. I don't mind that.
You have to be careful with this though.
Once upon a time people said this and what they meant was essentially selection bias. So they would report all the major stories, but when choosing the minor stories to fill the rest of their space, it would be stories favorable to one side or the other. And the stories they did cover were covered fairly.
The common practice now is purposely misleading people. Omitting key details of a story or selectively quoting people out of context to change the meaning of what they said.
Probably the canonical example of this is when people were protesting the taking down of statues of members of the confederacy. Some but not all of the protestors were neo-nazis. Others make the case that people are more than the worst thing they ever did, or that taking down the statues is an attempt to memory hole what happened.
Trump got in front of a camera and said "very fine people on both sides." In the same interview he makes explicit that he's not talking about the racists and condemns them:
The Guardian has a slant, but nearly every news outlet will have some slant, either by coverage or through omission. But it's certainly a lot worse at Newsmax and OAN.
EDIT: accidentally said "doesn't have"