[flukus]

> Statistically Fox is the least biased MSM outlet, they are 52% negative towards Trump, compared to over 90% for the others

And how negative were fox towards Obama? Of course they won't be as a negative with "their side" in.

> A Harvard study compared Obama to Trump media coverage their first 100 days in office and found Obama got 59% positive coverage compared to 20% for Trump

Negative coverage doesn't make them biased, undeserved negative bias does. Whether it's deserved or not is a debate for elsewhere.

[tossaccount123]

>Negative coverage doesn't make them biased, undeserved negative bias does. Whether it's deserved or not is a debate for elsewhere.

That's the point, you can report a bad story about somebody neutrally and just lay out the facts, but the media has consistently reported things negatively

[pacerwpg]

Regarding the methodology, from the link:

Tone is judged from the perspective of the actor. Negative stories include stories where the actor is criticized directly. An example is a headline story where Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer criticized Trump when the Labor Department’s April economic report showed that fewer jobs were created than had been predicted. Schumer was quoted as saying, in part: “Eleven weeks into his administration, we have seen nothing from President Trump on infrastructure, on trade, or on any other serious job-creating initiative.”[8] Negative stories also consist of stories where an event, trend, or development reflects unfavorably on the actor. Examples are the stories that appeared under the headlines “President Trump’s approval rating hits a new low”[9] and “GOP withdraws embattled health care bill, handing major setback to Trump, Ryan.”[10]

Negative things happening to or because of somebody isn't indicative of bias in the reporting.