I cannot agree with your premise or conclusion.

For one thing, Hillary Clinton complained about the same expectation. And it didn't help her in the end. Obama faced a lot of critical news coverage (remember those stories pushed by the mainstream media, claiming his wife was an Islamic sympathizer and hated America?). His supporters didn't complain about it.

Second, the media swings like a pendulum. When Kamala was first appointed to the nomination (she didn't win it), she was walking on air. The media was singing her praises with high-floating words like "excitement." And the narrative toward Trump couldn't be worse.

Now things have shifted. Trump is getting a pass, more than he should be. But there's no "news" here: everything said about Trump has been said for years. What is the point in covering it? Meanwhile, Kamala Harris revelations ARE news. so that could be one cause of it.

Third, Trump has had plenty of negative media coverage over the years. I hardly think the press have been pro-Trump ever since he announced he was running and George Stephanopolous was laughing.

Finally, I don't think Anderson Cooper or Bill Whitaker should be dinged for giving Kamala tough interviews. It's their job. The fact that she cracks under pressure and turns to, in the words of Obama strategist David Axelrod, "word salad city," is not an expectation that she is perfect. It is an expectation that she is competent. Which is a fair and reasonable bar to expect a nominee for President of the United States to be able to clear.