These papers' reporting biases have been well known for years. But the GP makes it sound like a particular story aired last week that focused specifically on an AGENDA the papers are pursuing.
An agenda is much more than a bias. It's a set of goals and a strategy for pursuing them. A systematic bias can be a big part of that strategy. But the goals and their origin are far more interesting.
When a brown person is doing a mass shooting, there is almost almost always a narrative about terrorism and how obviously the person must have been a terrorist and we just need to somehow find the link, even if the person has no clear link to anything.
The WaPo is pretty balanced on this front. But dont pretend the NYT is unbaised here. WSJ is certainly biased.