I liked the way Howard Zinn (who had his own rather strong biases, of course) made that point in the afterword to A People's History of the United States:

>But there is no such thing as a pure fact, innocent of interpretation. Behind every fact presented to the world—by a teacher, a writer, anyone—is a judgment. The judgment that has been made is that this fact is important, and that other facts, omitted, are not important.

I learned this when I dated a law student while in college. They teach an entire class to the first year students dedicated to presenting the facts of the case, the way lawyers do in their opening statements. They actually had to create the set of facts for each side. It was really interesting how you could totally bias it by what you emphasized or left out and the different words used (i.e. word connotations).

Manufacturing Consent is a must-read

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

> Everyone is pushing a narrative

But this an exaggeration. Some people are truly equivocal on a question, yet still able to muster the effort to write about it.

One way this happens is that some specific issue puts the author's internal values in tension. An example would be recall/impeachment of some corrupt official, where the tension is between the two goods of removing the bad actor from power, and maintaining the norm of orderly transition of government power.