NEW YORK — A Harvard University study released Wednesday concludes that media coverage of the 2016 presidential election was topped only by the 2000 Bush-Gore campaign for its overwhelming negativity.

Strip away “horse race” stories about who was leading or trailing in the polls, and coverage of issues relating to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s fitness for office was an identical 87 percent negative for each candidate, said the report by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.

“The real bias of the press is not that it’s liberal. Its bias is a decided preference for the negative,” said the report, written by Harvard political science professor Thomas Patterson.

The report looked at coverage on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox News Channel nightly newscasts, along with The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. The media analysis firm Media Tenor judged the tone of stories. For instance, a story about the FBI reopening an investigation into Clinton’s emails was judged a negative for her, and a USA Today story about lawsuits against Trump and his business was a negative for him.

With all stories included, Patterson said 71 percent of the overall coverage for Trump and Clinton was negative, 29 percent positive. The 2000 race was 75-to-25 percent negative. From his announcement, Trump received far more attention than any rival. This fall, Trump had more opportunities in the media to define his opponent than Clinton had with him, the report said.