First, I’d be interested in the source of these ‘statistical facts.’ Second, even if we assume such a statistical claim is true, it cannot be interpreted as prima fascie evidence of bias. For example, What was the ‘denominator’ in such studies? Further, what were the mores of the press during the span over which such statistics were collected? (Example: JFK was an undisputed womanizer, but press standards at the time considered this topic ‘out of bounds.’ If he were POTUS today, his peccadilloes would dominate the headlines.) Finally, we have to consider whether such statistics might simply reflect the fact that Republicans may commit acts worthy of negative coverage at a higher rate than do Dems.
tl;dr Whenever someone claims ‘it’s a fact the mainstream media is left leaning,’ I am immediately skeptical of both the claim and their motivations.
Indeed. But the problem is Trump’s behavior, not the coverage.
I’m not of that mind, so can’t/won’t address it.
You are conflating “fair” with “down the middle” (which I infer to mean roughly 50/50 coverage in terms of positive and negative stories). An extreme example: Coverage of Hitler here in the US was overwhelmingly negative. Does it follow from this fact that it was unfair? (And no, I am not comparing Trump to Hitler in any way, shape or form.)
Absent supporting data concerning this empirical claim, your opinion is not a matter of overwhelming interest (neither is mine).
We covered the fealty of Trump’s core supporters already.
This is an odd question. ‘Other than his obnoxious, undignified, dissembling-if-not-outright-lying public comments, what has Trump actually done that would cause a Trump supporter to no longer support him?’ You might want to reflect on that one.
QED.
The Daily Show? Colbert Report?
Further, as I have reminded you before, it is poor form to copy-and-paste without providing a link.