Chesterton: “History is every bit as controversial as theology.”
More Chesterton: “When the world goes wrong, it proves rather that the Church is right.”
The quote below from a book on bible translations also applies to why it’s perfectly okay to have a news source (such as The Epoch Times) that caters to conservatives. We’re people too. I think it goes to the larger issue that Republicans and Christians in general lack a collective self-confidence, or at least did pre-Trump, as if it’s proper to be cringing and to be terrified of being called "racist" or "conspiracy theorist or "homophobe" or "Islamophobe" or "election denier" or "Christian nationalist" or...
“Biblical scholars once hoped that by applying scientific methods to biblical interpretation, they could achieve an objective, evidence-based explanation of the Bible and its history. But as Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out in this regard, "Pure objectivity is an absurd abstraction."! Scripture is and always will be a controversial text. Interpreters will always be explaining it in a way that suits their presuppositions, biases, and theological agendas. Translations cannot escape the inherently biased nature of interpreting the biblical text.
The English Standard Version’s approach, however, aims for a self-consciously Christian translation. This does not mean that the ESV alters any text to make it more Christian, but that when a translation choice presents itself, more often than not the Translation Oversight Committee (TOC) opted for the more obviously Christian choice. One might argue that such a method is biased, unfair, or self-serving, but as I pointed out above every translation has an agenda. Why should it be objectionable to produce a Christian Bible translation that reflects the Christian canon's view of itself, that is, the New Testament's view of the Old?"