I've read the OP, because someone sane has to. It's basically "The New York Times are horrible, liberal people who wrote a lot about Trump because they found that was good for circulation, and then said don't vote for him. And the weaselly Washington Post followed their lead. Boo! Hooray for brave Rupert Murdoch who gave us the fair and balanced Fox News!" ("Is that OK, Mr. Murdoch, will you increase my salary, please?")
So, @Hong Wu, the accusation of bias was aimed at print media (as the tldr put it "the leading newspapers in the US have completely lost credibility due to unparalleled demonstrated bias"), and it was about 2016 and the election, not 2017 and Trump's presidency. Which, let's face it, has been an unparalleled clusterfuck, with Trump hires getting fired for treason, grift and incompetence at an incredible rate, Trump initiatives getting blocked by courts, and his 'major achievement' being to get Republicans with majorities in both houses to actually agree on a tax bill after a year. Big fucking wow. He is judged by historians to be
the worst president ever, so of course reporting is going to be more negative than positive. Unbiased reporting is not meant to be an "all shall have prizes" sop to Trump's bloated ego.
Your points 2 and 3 are just more right wing "fuck the facts, it's the way I feel about the articles that counts" whining.