>>My point is that data by itself is meaningless without an analisys and a conclusion.

Your point is scientifically wrong. Reproducible data can be used to support a number of hypotheses whose originators are supposed to try to disprove their version before declaring it. That second part is conveniently forgotten by people who link prejudice to a set of data as if theirs is the only possible conclusion.

>> Also, I think the logic of the analisys is simple: Trump has little fiddelity for the facts, and when he didn't like the coverage, he has criticized the media directly in very unsavory terms.

Really? That may be your hypothesis based on the data, but it's not mine. As an example, the Podesta leaks confirmed collusion between the MSM and the Clinton campaign, even passing presidential debate questions to her in advance. This doesn't just reflect badly on HRC who failed to report the corruption, it subverts democracy and willfully misleads voters who were assured that an impartial MSM was holding debates on an even playing field with candidates given equal opportunity. Now you may paraphrase that as "Trumpy Wumpy didn't like the coverage so he criticized the media in unsavory terms" but that's not what happened in real life.

>> It is this opinion (what else could it be?) that is leading to the conclusion that the negativity in the media may have something to do with it. At this point, we'd have to argue whether the opinion about Trump's (lack of) fiddelity for the facts is founded, but I'm afraid we won't see the end of it.

Just keep referring to the bias in the presidential debates. As an exercise: had Trump identified CNN corruption/collusion as an excuse to ban them from press conferences, who could blame him? But he didn't. Not that the MSM will ever give him credit for that.