I took a look at the current top item in "Politics":
https://knowherenews.com/event/2471ce59-379e-40fc-87f7-fee77...The impartial version "feels" impartial enough in tone, whereas the other two feel more openly partisan, the right one more than the left. But the story becomes more complicated when you look at the actual content.
Impartial version:
- Mentions historical dominance of left parties.
- Mentions rise of Sweden Democrats.
- Explains the Swedish political system.
- Explains the alliances.
- Explains that SD is unlikely to be in the government.
- Mentions that immigration is a central issue, but with no explanation.
- Quotes Kakabaveh from the Left party, at length. Mentions that she criticized Sweden's approach to integration, but with no details or explanation. Mentions threats on her by racists and fundamentalists.
- Is described as "impartial" at the bottom.
Left version:
- Mentions historical dominance of left parties.
- Mentions rise of Sweden Democrats.
- Explains the Swedish political system.
- Explains the alliances.
- Explains that SD is unlikely to be in the government.
- Only mention of immigration is that SD is anti-immigrant.
- Cites social democratic prime minister Löfven's criticism of SD.
- Is described as "positive" at the bottom.
Right version:
- Mentions historical dominance of left parties.
- Mentions rise of Sweden Democrats.
- Mentions that immigration and crime are top issues.
- Explains immigration and crime issues.
- Explains that SD "may not" be in the government.
- Cites SD leader Åkesson on broadening that party's appeal.
- Is described as "negative" at the bottom.
The left version goes into some detail on the workings of the Swedish parliamentary system, which are given a mere nod in the right version. On the other hand, the left version does not say anything at all about any issues with immigration in Sweden, while the right version goes into quite a bit of detail, and also discusses a crime issue, which is unmentioned elsewhere.
As for the impartial version, the content turns out to be basically the same as in the left version. Immigration is mentioned, but without any explanation of why it has become a political issue. And the politician cited is actually from the Left party, which sounds farther left than the Social-Democrat PM cited in the left version.