Why does "the media" keep "attacking" Trump?

In fact, there is no such thing as "the media" and they are not "attacking" the Trump administration.

"The media" is not some monolithic bloc with a mind if its own. There are organizations that use media and advocacy.  Some of them attack and some of them defend any given political viewpoint, using posts that resemble news stories, except for the advocacy.

But the point of THIS post is to examine the operation of the professional journalistic media organizations, and why THEY keep reporting on possible wrongdoing by Trump and friends.

Professional journalists are taught to keep their own opinions out of their stories.  If you see a "story" that expresses opinions that are NOT attributed to someone, you are probably reading advocacy and not news.

Professional journalists are taught that "news" is defined as things that are new, different, or changing. They are taught to exercise their news judgment about whether such a new, different, or changing thing has any significance, and whether telling the story would be of interest to the audience.

Professional journalists are taught that once they begin to cover an ongoing story, they need to keep following it, report updates, and report the story to its completion.

When it comes to professional journalists covering the Trump administration, HE originated the story.  His entire campaign was about how he would be different. He cultivated coverage through his outrageous statements and flamboyant behavior.

It was the "different" part of news being "new, different, or changing."

The first time (if there was a first time tor Trump) the story was "he did something that was kind of strange." The second time, the story was "he did it again."  After that, the story was "he's still doing it."

Trump has often used this dynamic to his benefit.  He accused the Obama administration of wire-tapping the Trump campaign, presenting no evidence. Journalists reported the story, and subsequent calls for an investigation.  Lots of Republicans were saying "the accusation has been made, so an investigation is appropriate."

Journalists kept reporting the developing story until the evidence became clear that there was no effort to wire tap Trump.

Now we have accusations that Trump campaign officials conspired with Russia. There is evidence.  The evidence is not conclusive. Lots of people are trying to spin the evidence.  It is an on-going story that professional journalists are obligated to report.

Professional journalistic reporting is not "attacking" the people the story is about. The strategy of shooting the messenger has often worked over the centuries, but don't be surprised that journalists will follow this story to its resolution.