I think what Trump himself did is actually irrelevant to the point I'm making. If Trump did many negative things and few positive things, then all news publications need to do is simply report on what he's doing and leave it at that. No editorializing should be necessary. There shouldn't be any need for him to receive 2-3x as much coverage as Clinton. There shouldn't be a need for major news organizations to officially endorse this or that candidate.

What's so hard about trusting viewers and readers to come to their own conclusions based on honest, simple, accurate, and exhaustive reporting of events and facts?

"I think what Trump himself did is actually irrelevant to the point I'm making."

It's not. They're reporting on what Trump did. If that's mostly negative, then the coverage is, by necessity, going to be mostly negative. You wouldn't be upset that most of the coverage now of Harvey Weinstein or Louis C.K. is negative, would you?

"If Trump did many negative things and few positive things, then all news publications need to do is simply report on what he's doing and leave it at that."

That's what they did.

"There shouldn't be a need for major news organizations to officially endorse this or that candidate."

That's been a tradition for editorial boards for a long time. Note: That's the editorial, or opinion board. Not the newsroom.

"What's so hard about trusting viewers and readers to come to their own conclusions based on honest, simple, accurate, and exhaustive reporting of events and facts?"

Well, for one, everyone knew the same things about Trump, and yet he was elected. But you're really going to have to prove that what you're asking for didn't happen.