>>>Conclusions from the same Harvard study you cite, which I think are important in defining the context:
>
>Not conclusions but authors' self-described "thoughts" that make more sense with a little more context:
>
>Have the mainstream media covered Trump in a fair and balanced way? That question cannot be answered definitively in the absence of an agreed-upon version of “reality” against which to compare Trump’s coverage. Any such assessment would also have to weigh the news media’s preference for the negative, a tendency in place long before Trump became president. Given that tendency, the fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever.
>
>The last paragraph you cited is opinion, not a "conclusion" derived from the numbers. But if the authors' thoughts are to be given prominence, how about this:

>The press should also start doing what it hasn’t done well for a long time—focus on policy effects. Journalists’ focus on the Washington power game—who’s up and who’s down, who’s getting the better of whom—can be a fascinating story but at the end of the day, it’s food for political junkies. It’s remote enough from the lives of most Americans to convince them that the political system doesn’t speak for them, or to them.
>
>A broadening of the scope of political coverage would require journalists to spend less time peering at the White House. Our analysis of news coverage of Trump’s first 100 days found that, except for his court-challenged immigration orders, the press paid only minimal attention to Trump’s executive orders. He issued a large number of them, covering everything from financial regulation to climate change. Collectively, these orders, immigration aside, accounted for less than 1 percent of Trump’s coverage, and rarely did a news report track an executive order into the agencies to see how it was being handled.

Yes, an opinion that puts the numbers in context. Clearly, the press coverage has been (probably the most) negative towards Trump. But, his total disregard for the facts puts him in direct conflict with news media, unlike any other before.
I can chose where I get the news, and I'd say I'm able to discern fact from fiction and make my own judgement. Ultimately, the media dishonesty doesn't bother me as much as Trump's dishonesty. I can power off the TV, or swipe left on news I don't trust. I can't do the same with Trump. So, I'd much rather talk about his actions, than about other people talking about him.
Fact: He's made numerous false and misleading claims. What kind of coverage do you think that is going to prompt in the media?
Perhaps, Trump's supporters should start talking about his accomplishments. But, I'm afraid that would be a much shorter conversation.
*