Huh.. Trump has actually been the subject of much more

[georgephillip]

negative coverage... per Harvard study.. not only that.. but the study authors warn that continuing to be so obviously biased, is not going to go well for journalists. Fox.. has actually been.. imagine this.. the most fair and balanced with ta 52/48 negative spin. Meanwhile CNN and NBC have been 93/7. The study also notes that despite all this whining from major media outlets no one has actually changed their minds.... lol. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/19/study-trump-press-coverage-new-standard-negativity/?utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=pushnotify&utm_medium=push

Your link:
"Harvard agrees: Trump press coverage sets ‘new standard for negativity’
Study by Shorenstein Center found 80-20 split on negative vs. positive White House coverage"

Has it occurred to you 4 out of every 5 actions Trump has taken so far have been negative for a majority of Americans?

How low will his approval ratings have to fall before you recognize the threat he poses to this country?

"Approval of President Trump drops to lowest since inauguration: Reuters/Ipsos poll"
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-poll-idUSKCN18F2AH

 

[connieb]

And, one can say the Trump administration repeatedly contradicted itself about the reason for Comey's firing, and that would both be factual and reflect negatively on Trump.

Possibly but still to report the statements is one thing. To
Opine on them is another.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Nonsense. Facts are neutral. How one judges the facts may be negative but that does not equate to the need to apply that negative spin when reporting. One can say, Trump fired coney, without opining as to the reasons or results.

Let's test your daffy theory...

The Nazis exterminated millions of people in death camps.

Is that a neutral fact?