That's counter-balanced by the fact that 99% of their business and economic coverage comes from the Wall Street Journal and other pro-Corporate news sources.

I used to read some of FAIR's (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) publications and the network and cable news outlets tended to fall in the middle on national reporting, pro-business in reporting on labor disputes (if at all) and middle to Center-Left on social issues.  However, the real biases came in what they didn't report.  Every year, Project CENSORED puts out a review of the Top 10 under-reported news stories and the subjects are alarming, quite often.  Through the 90s, one of the key under-reported stories was the CIA's links to drug trafficking, to fund covert operations in Latin America and Central Asia.  Labor was also a big one, as was the nuclear power industry and a few others.  A Couple of FAIR correspondents, way back in the early-mid 90s, had a book, called Through The Media Looking Glass, which explored how corporate biases influenced not only how they covered a story; but if.  For instance, Decatur, IL, which is close to my boyhood home town, had three factories on strike:  Caterpillar, Bridgestone and ADM.  On Labor Day, there was a massive demonstration march between the three plants, to illustrate the fight for fair wages.  Bridgestone had been using scab labor, which was in place when defective tires were produced at their plant, for SUVs, which they ultimately used as an excuse to shut the plant down and offshore it.

Anyway, the only media coverage was a local WAND news crew, who were booed away from the scene, because the station was perceived as completely pro-management, as their biggest advertisers were ADM, Caterpillar and other large businesses in the area and their reporting routinely used phrases like "union demands," and "management concessions" which made it sound like the unions were greedy and management was accommodating, rather than they were negotiating back and forth.  No national news organizations deemed it worthy of coverage..  All three networks and CNN were owned by corporate entities.

ABC News magazine program, 20/20 routinely turned down stories related to the nuclear power industry and safety concerns.  One of the producers of the show was married to a legal representative or lobbyist (I forget which) for the nuclear power industry.

The regular use of Conservative pundits or politicians and counter views was examined and it was noted that they often featured an ultra-Conservative rep, a Center Right and a Center-Left, but no hard Left or Progressive voice, let alone any talk of socialist POV.   Before them all getting jobs with FOX, several Conservative pundits, like Pat Buchanan and George Will were brought on news programs to debate issues; but never hard Left pundits, like Noam Chomsky.  Shows like CNN's Crossfire were circuses orchestrated to have hard Right battle, at best, Center, until John Stewart made a mockery of them, to their face, and the show was soon cancelled.

All of these kinds of biases were strong through the media and they argued there was little or no Left Media, apart from things like The Nation, since other groups, like NPR and McNeil-Lehrer received corporate funding and reported Wall Street Journal business stories and did not investigate them independently.

In the contested 2000 election, an American freelance reporter, working for The Guardian, in the UK, uncovered massive irregularities in the Felon List that the state of Florida used to block former convicted felons from voting.  He received copies of the actual contract with the private firm that generated the list and it revealed that the contract required 100% verification of the names on the list and criminal records.  The list featured first and last names, with no middle names or initials and no social security numbers.  The contract required total verification and greater than 90% accuracy.  Independent investigations of the list found it to be 70% or higher inaccurate with a sitting judges name on it and more than one election official, with no criminal records.  Two counties threw out the list, during voting.  The company that was awarded the contract was a major Republican Party donor and the CEO had close ties with the Reagan and Bush Administrations.  The Secretary of State was George W Bush's campaign manager, in Florida and she certified the election, despite the disputes in several counties.  of course, it eventually went to the Supreme Court for final decision.  However, the reporter shared information he had uncovered with major American news organizations, who all refused to pursue the story, then said it was over when the court decision came down.  The reporter was involved in a BBC investigative story of the election and a Florida official walked out of the interview when presented copies of the contract, requiring 100% verification.  Even if the list was 90% accurate, 10 % was enough to tilt the election in either direction.  Again, no one but the Guardian and the BBC reported the story and that was only in the UK, until the reporter wrote a book about it, which was published in the US, by a small press.

These are the elements that people miss when they discuss media bias; it's not just the actual on-air and in-print reporting, it is the editing and decisions to cover a story or not, let alone verifying sources and having investigative staffs to do the legwork.  The major trend for more than a decade is corporate ownership of media outlets, coupled with slashed budgets for investigative reporting.  The end result is too small of a crew to follow up stories, especially when they involve corporate negligence and malfeasance.

That is why I have always looked to multiple sources for news and find that print tends to be better for investigative work.  Beyond that, you have to identify the biases within the organizations you use and find alternate reporting, to give a better picture, assuming you care about the story or issue.  Social media algorithms are not designed to lead you to those sources and more often designed to hide them.  That's part of why my boss and I cringe when one of our youngsters asks us about a news story he read, since his main source of news is TikTok, despite our advice to check out anything that sounds fishy with a reputable news source, like the wire services.  He is pretty typical of what I see, culturally, of getting "news" from one very filtered source and only paying attention to either sensationalistic headlines, or complimentary newsfeeds.