Many, many mainstream news outlets during 2016 took the opinion that Trump was a serious threat to the USA, and comparing him on the same plane as Bill Clinton's wife would be to do the public a disservice— they basically argued that their bias against him was really just fair coverage and truthful reporting. A classic case of 2 + 2 equaling 5.
In August 2016, columnist Jim Rutenberg from the The New York Times argued the premise:
“If you’re a working journalist, and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?”
He concluded reporters couldn’t cover him fairly — that they had to take a stance against his unprecedented and "serious threat" to the Republic.
It is this type of lazy and detrimental journalistic mindset that has resulted in journalists who work for the MSM feeling that it is philanthropic to the public and wholly acceptable to twist the truth to fit a narrative whilst sneakily disguising opinions as facts.
Journalists take note: sticking to facts and smart, fact-based analysis is the safe, smart place to be right now. Not juvenile lying.