Maybe, and this is a radical thought, journalists (as opposed to pundits) should wait for actual facts to emerge before branding somebody one way or another?
I understand what you're saying. There is an aspect of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" here, though, I think. In waiting, they're open to accusations of not reporting or paying attention to a candidate, whether or not the accusation is fair.
It is perfectly possible to report on what Trump proposes and says and does without becoming a mind reader and fortune teller. You can - and actually very much should! - still report on his lies by giving facts disproving him, or mention e.g. scientific consensus or lack thereof questioning or substantiating his claims, or contrast the opinions Trump holds by also reporting on the opinions his opponents hold.
You can write opt-ed pieces and be a pundit for a while if you think your own opinion might interest your readers too.
But mixing reporting with fact-free punditry and a heap of general virtue signaling in the same article is just detrimental to ones journalistic reputation and will immediately alienate everybody outside of your own echo chamber.
You researched facts why Trump's immigration policies are bad? People stopped reading after the initial "Trump is such a racist!" paragraph.
You researched facts why Clinton's Libya policies backfired? People stopped reading after the initial "Hillary is so crooked!" paragraph.
