ArcaMax

And most of it was bad news, even as it provided an overflow of material for late night comedians. That's not surprising to anyone who has been paying attention. How do you put a positive spin on a presidency that launches itself with a presidential hissy-fit over the size of his inauguration crowd?

In fact, if anyone should be upset over being shut out by media bias, it is Democrats. Republican voices accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency, the study found, compared to only 6 percent for Democrats. That's the price of losing control of the White House and both houses of Congress, I guess.

Trump was also the featured speaker in nearly two-thirds of his coverage. That's because he is not only the president but also Donald Trump, a celebrity Twitter troll who became president, a man more savvy about media than about politics or policies. You couldn't make up a better sit-com premise than that.

Plus, his narrative offers the extra spice of knowing that he has the nuclear codes. Fun.

Trump has received maximum coverage for most weeks of his presidency without a single major topic where his coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, the study said, "setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president."

But did he deserve it? Considering the ways in which Trump effectively turned his "war" with the media into a major campaign rallying cry, he's turned the media bias charge from a liability into an asset.

Yet if there's anything on which both sides should agree, it is the Harvard study's suggestion that journalists "spend less time peering at the White House" and "more time in places where policy intersects with people's lives." Then we might stand better chance of spotting important stories like the discontent that led to Trump's new job --and may yet determine how long he keeps it.

========

(E-mail Clarence Page at cpage@chicagotribune.com.)

(c) 2017 CLARENCE PAGE DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.