Surely better than Regressive, no?

https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/chris-99178053752

Progressive is just the label they choose to use for themselves, so it's polite to use that same label when addressing or describing them.

It doesn't really mean that automatically makes their views or policies inherently better than those who disagree with them. It's important to analyze things people say and and investigate their claims for yourself, and not just tribally agree with them on everything they say just because they use an adjective that sounds nice to describe themselves.

Can you give me an example of a story you believe is overtly "progressive"?

How about the story that gave serious airtime to the book “In Defense of Looting” [0], which as the title implies, wholeheartedly condoned the looting and rioting that occurred during the summer protests.

[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178...

First I would point out that the article start with:

"This story was updated on Sept. 1, 2020. The original version of this story, which is an interview with an author who holds strong political views and ideas, did not provide readers enough context for them to fully assess some of the controversial opinions discussed."

So they are clearly cognizant of the fact that the content is very controversial. I think it's a sensitive and important subject, and one that doesn't really get addressed in a serious, scholarly way. In some ways, it's a perfect example of the kind of heterodox research that conservatives have advocated for in universities and public forums. And it is the job of the media to try to communicate what ideas are out there.

Do you have any examples of similar stories with a controversially conservative slant they have covered?

Nothing you're saying disputes that, editorially, they have a strong progressive bent.