Thanks for posting this topic and link to the "study". It's a great example of how to bias the results (although one must admit that not
biasing the results would be difficult).
Of the American news sources only Fox was "fair and balanced". Not much of a surprise.
Why was the Chicago Tribune not included, along with two other "Conservative" newspapers?
During the election campaign I took advantage of a special very low cost offer to receive the Sunday New York Times for twelve weeks. I wanted to see whether the reporting was better than the incessant negative drumbeat that I was getting from my daily Washington Post newspapers. The only benefit derived from this experiment was the weight added to my recycle bin. The NYT stories were, perhaps, better edited, but they were equally negative.
During the campaign the Washington Post overwhelmingly gave Mr. Trump undeserved coverage of inanities almost to the exclusion of coverage for other candidates. My wife told me the same thing was happening on non-Fox TV network news (I don't watch TV).
After the election the coverage of gaffs and worse is of course real news. Stuff is not being made up, and the sheer weight of what comes out of the White House and Mr. Trump's Twitter account is, by any rational measurement, overwhelmingly negative.
Only in business news reporting is there a difference, and that is only because of the frivolous wish for riches by investors who have not yet suffered a serious downturn brought about by the effects of actual Trump policies.
I have little doubt that the overall Harvard survey results would not have been changed in a major way by the inclusion of more conservative news sources. It remains impossible to make silk purses out of sow's ears.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.