>>>My point is that data by itself is meaningless without an analysis 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.

Where I think you're wrong, is in assuming that people think that there's only one possible conclusion. I'm advancing something that I think is reasonable based on the results that you cited. What you call a hypothesis is actually a conclusion based on numbers and facts. The only thing that I see so far is your insistence that I am prejudiced, when it is clear from the numbers that the media is mostly negative. Why is it that the media is so negative? I gave you my opinion, as subjective as you think it might be, but it is based on sound logic. You have the numbers and the facts. Stop cherry-picking examples, and give us your conclusion.

>>> Also, I think the logic of the analysis is simple: Trump has little fidelity 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.

I'll have to refer you back to the coverage of the Republican primaries, when HRC or Podesta had nothing to do with Trump. See what kind of coverage he got back then, and what he was saying about the media.
*