Trump received endorsements from just a handful of newspapers. Many very conservative newspapers endorsed Clinton and a couple Gary Johnson. One has to separate what appears on the Editorial page versus what appears in the news section.
As someone who once was guilty of committing journalism, let me add that (at least for those of us in the United States; I don't have sufficient experience with news media in other countries to generalize) it's important to distinguish between the way the traditional print press covers Trump and the way the all-news cable TV channels do. With a few notable exceptions at the extremes of the political spectrum, almost all of the former have a review process in which editors try to remove any obvious bias from straight news reporting before a piece is published. In some cases—the New York
Times is a notable example—there typically will be multiple levels of editing before a story about government or politics makes it into print. The need to feed online news sites has truncated this editorial process to some extent by tightening deadline cycles, but even there the requirement for a review by an editor mostly remains intact.
All-news cable TV is a very different kind of medium. First, the reporter often speaks directly and extemporaneously to the audience, in real-time; other than a quick chat with a director in a central studio, there is no opportunity to review what the reporter is about to say, and no doubt afterwards many of them cringe at the way their words came out. Even when a report is contained in a video that is produced prior to airtime, the editorial review, such as it is, typically consists of nothing more than a hurried edit by a field producer (basically another reporter who doesn't appear on camera), and these days, given budget constraints that limit the size of television crews, often not even that. Second, cable TV outlets in this country mostly fill their airtime with commentary by either their own staff members or guests—sometimes paid consultants, sometimes public figures who want the exposure—who are selected to represent particular points-of-view. These news media function more like the opinion pages of a newspaper than the news columns.
Trump presents a novel problem for everybody in the news business. He often says things that are probably or demonstrably untrue. It isn't always clear what his motives are. Sometimes he appears to be repeating what "somebody" told him. Sometimes he seems to be conjuring up an example to fit his narrative. Sometimes he apparently doesn't have any information on a particular subject and blurts out the first random thought that pops into his head. Occasionally, it sounds as though he is delusional. And probably sometimes he is lying. If you're a conscientious reporter, the only easy case is when he says something that might be true but for which he offers no evidence; then you can simply write or say that. When what he says is obviously false, you're faced with a difficult decision about how to characterize it. That's where it's very useful to have a second (or third, etc.) pair of eyes and—preferably—enough time prior to deadline to make a considered decision.
