But if it were true that the inclusion of such information is, in fact, framed to promote a narrative beyond just the facts, how is it a political cheap shot to

But if it were true that the inclusion of such information is, in fact, framed to promote a narrative beyond just the facts, how is it a political cheap shot to point out the distinction, and wouldn't "[stopping] at the first sentence" be bias by omission? I would suggest that "the editing of history curricula that states like Florida are doing" is a political cheap shot if what Florida is doing is putting up firewalls that prevent such narrative propaganda. I think it's worth having a factual discussion about.