A fun one is to compare its coverage of Trump's Ukraine scandal to Biden's Ukraine scandal. It is a good example of slant being constructed from completely factual reporting.

We've got pretty clear kickbacks happening from a Ukraine company to a high ranking US official. It is likely legal in the same way that congressional insider trading is legal - it'd be illegal except for the fact that it affects politicians. Wikipedia doesn't consider there to be anything there worth talking about except for a page on Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theories despite there being, as far as I can tell from reading the related pages, no plausible explanation for what was going on except corruption.

Then you go to the Trump page where he prods the Ukrainians to investigate what, prima-facie, looks like pretty serious corruption and we get the short thesis that is the Trump–Ukraine scandal page.