Pensez-vous vraiment que je mettrais en lien une étude sans l'avoir lu?... Et pourquoi à votre avis ais-je indiquer, en le faisant, qu'Harvard n'était pas "pro-trump"?... Si vous allez à "leur" interprétation de leur étude, il est évident qu'ils tentent de montrer que c'est la faute de Trump (étant donné qu'il est notoire qu'ils ne se cachent pas avoir été pro HRC), Mais, et le "mais" a son importance... vous y lirez aussi ces phrases clefs que vous semblez avoir squizzé:

- "Have the mainstream media covered Trump in a fair and balanced way? That question cannot be answered definitively in the absence of an agreed-upon version of “reality” against which to compare Trump’s coverage."
(comme cela ils se couvrent... et vous donnent tord par la-même quand vous affirmez qu'ils font leur job normalement...)

Mais:

- "Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days was negative even by the standards of today’s hyper-critical press."
(c'est on ne peut plus clair...)

Et:

- "What’s truly atypical about Trump’s coverage is that it’s sharply negative"
(sans commentaires...)

Et:

- "the sheer level of negative coverage gives weight to Trump’s contention, one shared by his core constituency, that the media are hell bent on destroying his presidency."
(c'est "limpide"...)

Et:

- "Never in the nation’s history has the country had a president with so little fidelity to the facts, so little appreciation for the dignity of the presidential office, and so little understanding of the underpinnings of democracy."
(y a-t-il quelque chose que vous ne comprenez pas?...)

Et:

- "The media’s credibility today is at low ebb (...) the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it. The public’s low level of confidence in the press is the result of several factors, one of which is a belief that journalists are biased. That perception weakens the press’s watchdog role. One of the more remarkable features of news coverage of Trump’s first 100 days is that it has changed few minds about the president, for better or worse. The nation’s watchdog has lost much of its bite and won’t regain it until the public perceives it as an impartial broker, applying the same reporting standards to both parties."
(c'est on ne peut plus clair... sauf pour qui ne veut pas lire...)

Et:

- "The press should also start doing what it hasn’t done well for a long time—focus on policy effects. Journalists’ focus on the Washington power game—who’s up and who’s down, who’s getting the better of whom—can be a fascinating story but at the end of the day, it’s food for political junkies."
(c'est de la nourriture pour les junkies, aka: "les démocrates", qui d'autre?... mais rien de factuel sur le "fond" = la "politique et ce qui est voté/décidé"...), pour qu'ils le disent eux-même... je vous laisse imaginer...

Et:

- "A broadening of the scope of political coverage would require journalists to spend less time peering at the White House."
...

- "the press paid only minimal attention to Trump’s executive orders. He issued a large number of them, covering everything from financial regulation to climate change. Collectively, these orders, immigration aside, accounted for less than 1 percent of Trump’s coverage"
(Vous n'appelez pas ça un "biais de présentation/couverture" peut-être?... moins de 1% sur les décisions et votes passés... vous noterez qu'Harvard ne cautionne pas...)

Et:

- "Journalists would also do well to spend less time in Washington and more time in places where policy intersects with people’s lives. If they had done so during the presidential campaign, they would not have missed the story that keyed Trump’s victory"
(Limpide...)

Et:

- "the balance is still off. More voices need to be aired. Trump might be good for ratings but he’s not the only voice worth hearing. Never have journalists fixated on a single newsmaker for as long as they have on Trump."
(clair non?...)

Et:

- "Journalists need to resist even the smallest temptation to see themselves as opponents of government. It’s the competition between the party in power and the opposing party, and not between government and the press, that’s at the core of the democratic process."
(seriez-vous de mauvaise foi?...)

Et:

- "When spokespersons for the opposing party get a mere 6 percent of the airtime, something’s amiss."
(la conclusion est sans appel...)

Bref, "vous" ne lisez et comprenez que ce que "vous" voulez, et comme vous dites, c'est un cas d'école... "vous" faites un biais de présentation... je vous invite à relire l'étude, tel que je l'ai fait, et avec, les phrases clefs de leurs conclusions quotées ci-dessus... C'est "sans appel"... les "biais" sont bien présent et reconnus, à moins que vous ne compreniez pas l'anglais?

Bonne journée