It would be interesting to compare just the headlines vs the entire article. My local paper, the Washington Post, has developed a pattern of writing headlines that put a negative spin on everything Biden and the Democrats do, while the articles mostly are better balanced. A similar pattern has developed with the NY Times. Since a LOT of people only skim headlines, they come away with a very different sense of things. Both of those papers seem to be trying to broaden subscriptions and it does make me wonder if they are slanting the headlines to pull in more right-leaning readers (which, personally, I doubt is going to happen).

As background, I did my PhD dissertation on coverage of occupational health in the mainstream and alternative press. This was in the 1980s, where the alt press was things like Mother Jones and some weeklies. As other commenters have noted, framing is crucial: the same set of "facts" and data can be discussed in very different ways, depending on who a reporter chooses to interview or rely on as a source.

The real issue facing our news organizations is that journalists are still trying for a false equivalence, as if the GOP is still behaving as a party interested in governing and compromise. This both-sides approach is a fail, in my opinion.