Its like the difference between MSNBC and FOX. Both have contrasting points of view, but FOX lies and misleads shamelessly. It can't be trusted at all. But if you rely on MSNBC completely for your news you don't get the complete truth either. Absence of lies does not mean the truth. You still are only getting one side.

Just because Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes won't lie to you and because they do good research and reporting, doesn't mean they don't shade and present and slant in clever and gentle ways. The effect is cumulative, but its unfair. Just a tiny example, when comparing two opposing spokesmen (assuming they are both equally articulate), let the guy you don't agree with speak first, then let the guy on your side do his rebuttal.
The fair way to do it is to let both sides speak, independently of the other and not knowing what the other is going to say. Then let each rebut the original comments of his opponent. And flip a coin to see who goes first.

As I mentioned, FOX is wingnut propaganda, they are a disgrace. MSNBC is fair and truthful, but there's no denying they have an agenda. CNN gives the fairest cable news, although I confess its not the one I most enjoy watching. PBS gives the best nightly news--by far. The BBC used to be good, but they seem to be avoiding conTROVersy lately, at least for the USA market. TV network news is worthless, not because they have a political agenda, they're fair enough, but because their main purpose is to sell advertising, not inform the public. They're not much better than local news. Mostly, they try to avoid offending anyone.

The best deep analysis news show is Frontline. Sometimes its scary just how good they are.

As I've mentioned before, I have been extensively trained in public relations and the biggest take-away from all that was that if you know the subject matter well you can easily take either side of the argument and argue it well, demolishing your opponent (unless his training and experience is equivalent to yours). You will note it doesn't really matter which side you personally believe is "right". Like lawyers, propagandists don't think in terms of guilt or innocence, right or wrong, they are only concerned about professional ethics. And those are only the best ones. The majority only care about winning.

Getting back to your original question, I found the show "propagandistic" because it laid out the facts, the brief, exactly as if I would have laid it out if I were composing a detailed indictment of Donald Trump. Everything that did not support that narrative was either left out, or sandwiched between completely devastating counter arguments. They didn't just give you the history, they arranged it so the conclusions were inevitable. I can tell you precisely the politics and the prejudices of the writers.

I need to think more about this. Rereading my answer to you I can see it is not totally satisfying, that I haven't properly answered your question, but my gut instinct tells me I'm on the right track. And I've learned to trust my gut when it comes to politics.