Even in these chaotic days, this qualifies as a completely ludicrous and somewhat baffling argument. Working my way down your message, I would start by agreeing with you that not everyone in the media is pro Johnson, but, certainly in the print media, the large majority of them are.- as for the BBC there was a poll done quite recently, that there is a large number of people who think they are left wing biased, but then there are similar numbers who feel they are right wing biased.
As has been pointed out already, you then go on to claim that by reporting the events you list (news events which were covered by the news media!) this is, somehow, proving that the news media is anti, not pro, Johnson. I don't get why you didn't also mention the fact that we have a Prime Minister who won't say how many children he has fathered, his intervention in the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe case when he was Foreign Secretary, tthe fact he twice voted against a deal which could have had us out of the EU months ago and that he has hung out the DUP to dry in the last fortnight - using your logic, that would have strengthened your argument.
Can I ask, if you don't think the media is pro Johnson, who do you think they favour? Even you can't imagine it is jeremy Corbyn and his party surely? Just imagine what the print media would have made of the events you list if a quarter of them related to Corbyn not Johnson.
The notion that any of the stories you list should be ignored and are down to the petty vendettas of the writers, as you seem to imply, is simply ridiculous when you consider that they relate to the Prime Minister of this country
Just click on the page on the BBC website which shows the front pages of the national newspapers and you soon see how "hostile" the majority of the print media is to Johnson.
Finally, if you are going to bring a tragedy where scores of people needlessly died or were made homeless into your argument, at least get the name of the block of flats that burned down right - it was Grenfell Tower.