A Harvard study on media coverage of Trump has been used to condemn journalists as biased.

That's a very superficial reading of the report.

Scanners of a recently released Harvard University study probably came away feeling that the media really is out to get President Donald Trump.

Media antagonists and Trump supporters probably feel vindicated that an elite coastal Ivy League institution would confirm their suspicions of journalistic bias.

After all, that is a sentiment promoted by conservative news sites and columnists with headlines such as:

However, all readers should take the take time to get to the meat — and read to the end — of Harvard's Shorenstein Center of Media, Politics and Public Policy's "News Coverage of Donald Trump's First 100 Days" report.

They will find this gem: "The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever."

It is true that the "negative" coverage outlined in the study outweighs that of any other president in recent history — only Barack Obama received more positive than negative coverage in his first 100 days, according to the study.

However, Trump also has been covered more extensively than any other previous president in his first 100 days.

Moreover, in 65 percent of the stories about Trump, he gets to have his say — something other presidents have complained about not getting.

Important to note is that the study focused on just 10 publications or broadcasters in the U.S. and abroad: the print editions of the Washington Post, The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal; the main news broadcasts of CBS, CNN, NBC and Fox; the United Kingdom's Financial Times and BBC; and Germany's ARD.

The definition of negative revolves around finding coverage that either involved something or someone critical of Trump's statements and actions or the president being presented in an unfavorable manner.

If negative involves challenging the president on the veracity of many of his statements, however, then there is a reason Trump's coverage was not always favorable.

That is a very limited way to look at reporting and a very limited sample to examine.

That is not to say the results are invalid or not useful, but a more compelling pursuit would be to examine whether the media is covering Trump's administration accurately.

Negative and positive can be relative terms. Asking the question "Is it true?" can offer a more definite answer.

Responsible media outlets, like the ones in the study and thousands more, take this question to heart and when an error or inaccuracy occurs, they take great pains to correct it.

The report does make a reasonable call to media outlets to stop the hyper-focus on the drama surrounding Trump and instead concentrate more on the policy implications of his executive orders and priorities — and also to include more voices beyond Trump.

“Trump might be good for ratings but he’s not the only voice worth hearing," the report says. "Never have journalists fixated on a single newsmaker for as long as they have on Trump. If he sees journalists as his main opponents, one reason is that between Trump and themselves there’s not much air time for everyone else."

Opinion and Engagement Editor David Plazas wrote this editorial on behalf of The Tennessean Editorial Board and the USA TODAY NETWORK - Tennessee. Call him at 615-259-8063, email him at dplazas@tennessean.com or tweet to him at @davidplazas.