CNN was started by ted turner he isn't middle anything.

CNN was at our local airport, the airport shifted over to FOX news, the passengers complained loudly, it went back to CNN.

Pax are in airport terminals for an hour or two. They don't complain about what is on 9 tv's.

Well, if nobody complains, they wouldn't have changed it back to CNN.. It must be important to some people

Here's what I'm thinking. Half the country voted for Trump. I would guess about half the country consumes conservative media. (Fox, talk radio, drudge)

I imagine the people that voted for Trump and consume conservative media, probably feel about CNN the same way liberals feel about Fox. (Because, as the Harvard study shows, the CNN coverage of Trump is overwhelmingly negative)

They are either sitting there not caring or for some reason they are not compelled to complain about it.

I think we're too polarized lately. I feel the same way about listening to alternative positions in airports as I do on college campuses: Americans shouldn't shout down perspectives they disagree with. I think it's inappropriate to interrupt or attack speakers on campuses. If one doesn't agree with a speaker, one can boycott the event. If one doesn't like the news, one can request a different channel, or boycott a facility (airport). We have individual rights, but it doesn't seem practical (or wise) for them to include not having to hear things we don't like. This doesn't mean we can't work, peacefully, to change things.

Is this reasonable?

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.

A presidency is 1460 days long. Forget the 100 day marker. In terms of border security, economy and deregulation he has accomplished more than BHO did in 8 years. The main stream media doesn't cover any of it.

True. That's why there's a disconnect and the charges of bias and propaganda.

To remove any charge of bias, I would encourage you to judge him SOLELY on his own statements and promises for the first 100 days. By his OWN claims he is probably running about 20% success.

And I guess I have to ask, what particular specific action would he have to take for you to no longer support him? Maybe it's the case that there is nothing he could do to make you stop supporting him? I'm just trying to understand the thought process.