The idea that the media has been soft on Trump is a joke - they have covered, often in depth, each one of his 'gaffes' and his questionable statements, and many media personalities and publications have now spent well over a year attacking Trump (even conservative ones like the National Review). The problem is a very large number of people either do not care or, whilst not exactly being comfortable with Trump, are not prepared to vote for the alternatives. The thing with Trump is that being a loose cannon and a sleazy wheeler dealer is something that has been baked into his public image since well before this electoral cycle even began - people know Trump is a bit of a bullyboy and a crook, and he never bothers to attempt to refute this seriously. Thus, the media can hammer at him (and indeed have done so) and it will make very little impact aside from upon a small number of voters.
Beyond "soft" the media has aides and abetted Trump. Sure, they have covered his idiotic and vile statements. Exactly like they covered Clinton or Romney. They have legitimized him and promoted him and his agenda.
Trump should have been covered like the presidential camapigns of Stephen Colbert or Vermin Supreme. By treating his candidacy as real, serious, and acceptable the media have done him a great service.
Hillary tried to "cover/treat" him as you/other Red Hacks wish. Alt right speech, other similar staff, deplorables. It didn't work well, did it?
But I would
love if media would treat him as you want them to. There is a reason why:
