In politics it is all lies, or at best a "different kind of truth".
I have a book titled "The Crime Drop in America" which has a collection of papers in it by sociologists -- the backdrop is that crime exploded in the US in the 1970s, became an issue of major concern, then dropped precipitously by the mid 1990s. (To start rising around the middle of the 2010s... because "it fluctuates")
There are numerous explanations of this proposed such as: "they removed lead from gasoline", "they hired more cops", "legal abortion meant many unwanted children destined to become criminals were never born", "judges locked criminals up for longer", "it got much harder to steal a car", "blacks in NYC decided it was more chill to pass around a blunt in a circle and sip from a 40 than to take heroin and cocaine".
That last one was the only one expressed unequivocally. All the other authors gathered statistics and tried to make some conclusion and they couldn't because all of these factors and more are in play and you can't do an experiment that teases them apart.
A truthful summation of that book would be the unsatisfying "we don't know", a better summation would be like what I say above but maybe a bit more systematic where a number of of causes are listed and you can say "maybe it was all of the above".
People like to collect beliefs that support their identity and certainly a leftist or a rightist could cherry pick explanations that fit their preconceptions but if that is how you're thinking you are not thinking about the "truth" as an objective thing (in this case it doesn't exist, or does exist and is unknown) but rather the best you can do is learn to make accurate statements about people's opinions -- which is at best statistical.
In politics today there is a reversal of causality. One could choose to get involved in politics because one wants to influence policy, but to do that in a representative system you have to be able to shift your support from one politican to another. If on the other hand you build your self-image around your political identity you are just a tool (deciding your self-interest based on an identity imposed on you as opposed to deciding your identity based on your self-interest. It's all very good for somebody else's self-interest.)
Since the John Birch society in the 1950s, belief that conservatives are persecuted by the media has been a foundational piece of far right identity. I grew up in New Hampshire where we had The Manchester Union Leader long before conservative papers became widespread, and I remember editorials about how the right has to steal ideas from Antonio Gramsci back in the 1980s. It's going to be a talking point whether or not conservatives have 20% representation in the media or 80% representation in the media because it "works".
As for "censorship" I think that's not the right model for 2023. A simple model of communication involves both a transmitter and a receiver. Somebody might think they have a right to mouth off (transmit) or a right to be heard (be received) but those are entirely different systems. Considering that 8 billion people are doing their thing on this planet, the process of summarizing what they did yesterday in a 50 page newspper does considerable violence against the fabric of reality itself. 999,999 out of 1,000,000 things are by necessity "not fit to print" and it is certain that the "Dark Matter" of what doesn't get talked about is more significant than some argument about a trumped-up issue that gets repeated, and repeated again, and repeated again, and repeated again, and ...
The receiver has a limited capacity and spamming the agenda is a denial of service attack. People act as if saying "ME TOO!" on Twitter is something valuable, if not sacred, but what is priceless is somebody having the time and space to do research, really think things through, and have something considered to say. That's worth what, 1,000,00 Tweets? In that case, who cares was nonsense people parrot on Twitter?