I strongly suspect there was a lot of complicity in the Media in regards to just how much attention Trump received from the media. After all, some of the forensics done on the 2012 Race of Romney vs Obama found that in some "key demographics" Romney was grievously damaged due to positions and statements made during the Primary Campaign -- In direct response to Donald Trump.
As such, for a left-leaning media, he was the perfect "Republican Candidate" to concentrate attention on, because they knew he was controversial, and they also knew he had a proven track record of pulling other Republicans into "harmful political positions" so the longer they could keep him relevant in 2016, the more damage he could do to the Republicans. Mission accomplished.
You are kidding here, right? Covering Trump in 2016 was a secret Media plot because those stupid Republicans didn't know what they were doing when they turned out by the [EDIT: tens of] thousands to the Donald's rallies? The only ones who didn't understand what was happening---what the genuine rage and frustration and despair expressed by supporting Trump---were traditional Republican "establishment." Not that Donald gave a damn about the rage and frustration and despair either, but he knew how to use it to his own advantage.
As for the so-called left-leaning media, if you refer to the real newspapers in this country---NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, WSJ (reporting, not editorial) etc., etc.---the only ones who consider them "left-leaning" are Republicans. By any reasonable traditional standard they [EDIT: mostly] trend liberal, yes, but "left-leaning" in the traditional sense of Left, hardly. That's a Republican/Fox fiction. A convenient one for them, too. EDIT: Ask Bernie Sanders who is "left" and who isn't.
In college I heard "to be educated is to be liberal." I was "liberal," so that sounded pretty good, although even in my foolishness I recognized how smarmy, patronizing and smug, not to mention silly, the phrase was.
I also hadn't yet heard genuine reasoned conservative arguments, but as soon as I did I realized there were indeed well-founded arguments for effective limited government, personal responsibility, and individual initiative.
None of which are found in the present-day Republican Party, by the way. Sadly. They could provide a serious alternative if they (a) accepted real science (global warming / climate change, anyone?) and (b) recognized the government's responsibility for creating the conditions for people to compete fairly.
Oh, and break up the big banks, for good measure. (OK, I'm kidding on that last one. Sort of.)