>>It is the context in which the publishers of the study you cited see the numbers. You cited a study on media coverage. The numbers show the negativity, but why so?

Yes, but it's the inductive fallacy to assemble facts then attach your own viewpoint acting as if it is supported by the facts.

The dog barked, then the house fell down. Therefore?

No thanks- you need to "prove" that barking causes the collapse rather than just saying "voila" because you don't like the dog.

>>There have been other presidents that had low approval rating at this stage (maybe none as low as Trump), but for different reasons. When the news media is supposed to report on facts, and the president is answering with "alternative facts", that creates a direct conflict.

Yes, but the definition of "alternative facts" has been warped to suit the anti-Trump narrative. The term first was used by Conway after she was presented with "facts" by a MSM reporter. She referred to "alternative facts" by which she meant the MSM had cherry picked some facts to suit its narrative while ignoring other/alternative facts that support hers- but sure enough, the term got warped to suit the narrative. Find the clip when it happened and see for yourself.

>>Do media outlets pick facts that reflect negatively on Trump? Well, yeah. What else is new? However, even though exaggerated, the media coverage is prompted by his behavior.

The dog barked, the house fell down. Naughty dog.

>>Anyway, after Trump was shown the pictures from above, he should have admitted that the numbers may not have been as glorious as he had seen them. With his reaction after that, he only humiliated himself. Of course, my opinion.

Do you know what he actually did say?

>>But, here is a shorter, more compelling list for the first 100 days.
>>http://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/100-days-whoppers/

A fact checking citation with "100-days-whoppers" in its url. I know what the slant will be without even looking, which is the bed the MSM is making for itself.