They might not be injecting it directly , but they certainly surface it by omission/language choice.

Like saying the UK "commandeered" or "retrieved" a boat or transport , but would say "hijacked", "stole" or "pirated" for a demographics they didn't particularly favour at that time.

You should be paying attention to the omissions and the choice of language overall, because that's where the bias is (usually).

That's like saying

The human effect on climate change is controversial

Sure, you can argue that, technically

But at the same time, giving it any time in the spotlight is a choice

Given that one of the sides in that debate is objectively wrong and the point of the guardian is having journalists employed there presumably