I was unable to reply directly to your citing of the Harvard study, so I am doing it here. Pew did a similar study to the one you cite. They found similar information. But, they point out that is may have less to do with the news outlets than with the stories themselves. If Trump says negative things about Mexicans and Muslims, the stories were negative, for example. This is like saying that no journalists said anything positive about Charlie Manson sending his cult followers to kill Sharon Tate. Where was the balance there? If a person is purposely doing or saying things to draw attention to their extreme ideas, policies and actions, it is absurd to expect positive responses from the majority of people, which will guide news stories. When Trump says things that are designed to "fire up the base," "negative news coverage," is anticipated and adds to his cred with his audience. That is how journalism works. And that is how politicians manipulate coverage to their benfit. If Trump got positive coverage for much of what he says, it would be a mission failure. If Bernie Sanders says stupid things about capitalism, expecting reporters who cover the financial sector to write hearts and flowers stories is unrealistic.
