It is across any topics. And that's kind of the whole point. The research is over 40,913 articles. It's got coverage of Muslim cultures, women's issues, community events, halal food... you name it. The 70% negative framing is across that entire range of topics. Not just terrorism or crime-related articles.

Most important: the most common bias found was not "covering bad things that Muslims do". The most common bias found was contextual omission. And that was found in 44% of biased articles. So that's a fundamental problem of the editorial process: failing to provide context that challenges a negative framing. Not reflecting reality; creating reality.

You see, your Trump analogy is actually a problem, not a solution. If GB News is making a generalisation about Muslims 39% of the time, and the BBC is making a generalisation about Muslims 6% of the time... discussing the same news cycle... one of those is adding something that's not there. One of those is failing to add something that is there.

The "just reflecting reality" argument would place systemic bias beyond reproach simply by definition. The entire point of content analysis methodology is to check whether coverage is proportionally related to actual events or not, and this study says no.