Originally Posted by
bay982
There is a basic logic problem with your thought on the Harvard study though: negative coverage does not necessarily mean bias. You would agree, I think, that Kim Kardashian deserved 80% negative coverage, and that media isn't being unfair to her.
Based on Trump's honestly, behavior, and promises versus accomplishments in his first 100 days, I think you might agree that it might be entirely possible that his 'grade' compared to past presidents, both Democratic and Republican, is far far lower, warranting only 20% positive coverage.
I disagree with that. Trump got about 50% of the vote. If you poll those who voted for him, something like 97% still support him.
I understand if you didn't vote for him and think he's the worst president ever. Based on some traditional metrics, maybe you've got a strong case.
But, there's probably a reason why people voted for him, despite his non-standard tactics.
I respect the opinion of people that voted for Hillary Clinton. I get why they voted for her.
I also believe the people that voted for Trump are not stupid or ill informed. I believe they were underserved under past administrations and they feel Trump is delivering exactly what they expected.