[oregontim]

Trump was covered far more negatively than other presidents:

---

FWIW, I don't think the graphic above proves bias in any way. I think it's a reflection of the actual source facts. Like what must have been for coverage of, say, Hitler vs. Churchill. A fair press would naturally be 80/20 on a man known for narcissism, lies, the bullying, the abuse, the disregard for country and constitution ... I think the chart above proves that the media were bending over backwards to be factual.

The 80:40 comparison with Obama, for example ...compare Obama's record and public persona to Trump's. 

Then more negative for Bush also fits reality ... not that 9/11 was his fault, but it was his watch, and then the invasion of Iraq, reports of torture. His lower skill level with ad-hoc public speaking, etc.

And Clinton, negative too, a reflection of another impeachment, his character issues, etc.

So your chart shows professional reporting, not bias. IMO.

[oregontim]

Trump was covered far more negatively than other presidents:

---

FWIW, I don't think the graphic above proves bias in any way. I think it's a reflection of the actual source facts. Like what must have been for coverage of, say, Hitler vs. Churchill. A fair press would naturally be 80/20 on a man known for narcissism, lies, the bullying, the abuse, the disregard for country and constitution ... I think the chart above proves that the media were bending over backwards to be factual.

The 80:40 comparison with Obama, for example ...compare Obama's record and public persona to Trump's. 

Then more negative for Bush also fits reality ... not that 9/11 was his fault, but it was his watch, and then the invasion of Iraq, reports of torture. His lower skill level with ad-hoc public speaking, etc.

And Clinton, negative too, a reflection of another impeachment, his character issues, etc.

So your chart shows professional reporting, not bias. IMO.