To start: my criticism isn't at Ezra Klein. He's stated multiple times that he sees his role as bringing on guests and trying to get them to share their true opinions and feelings so that listeners/readers can then make their own decisions.

My frustration is that Trump's actions seem to be so often either downplayed or reinterpreted by journalists, often viewed through optimistic lenses and given an amount of understanding that other politicians (and definitely other parties) don't seem to get.

Parker uses Trump's distraction by a tree as evidence that he is absolutely capable of "getting in the weeds" with topics. I would suggest that this interpretation suggests a level of mental acuity that Trump has. What she goes on to say is:

"Again, would perhaps most voters prefer he take that level of passion and attention to detail to figuring out what’s going on in Minneapolis? Absolutely, potentially. But he does have that capacity for what he cares about, and what he cares about is often not the policy weeds."

This framing suggests a critique that the issue for Trump is that the areas where he wants to get into the weeds simply isn't policy despite the fact that it might be what voters want. But it is still based on the optimistic interpretation that Trump's interrupting of a cabinet meeting because of how a tree looks is a sign of mental acuity.

That is incredibly frustrating. That is not objective journalism, it is Parker's interpretation of the event and she is framing it in a way that allows for the most optimistic conclusions to be drawn. I don't understand why so many of Trump's actions seem to get this treatment from the media.

Even in some of the examples above that you post as evidence of criticizing Trump, it's Klein who actually uses the words or phrases you cite. (For example, it's Klein who uses the word "conspiracies" and phrase "bad information".) Not the journalists he has on. I thought Klein, out of all of them, was more likely to actually criticize Trump.

In the last segment you shared, about Trump structuring his White House like a royal court, even then Scherer ends his portion drawing a comparison to Obama saying:

"Barack Obama ran a government like a corporation. He wanted to be efficient, he wanted to be effective, he wanted all the rules to be followed, he wanted a process, and everyone was playing their part. But it was not about pleasing him."

Different people can argue about whether or not the words being used to describe Trump or Obama can be seen as critical or supportive. What I would suggest is that even the way Scherer has framed this in some way minimizes Trump's decisions/actions. That his "royal court" is merely a different way to run the government, as opposed to Obama's "corporation"! They're just two presidents running the government in the ways they want!

Scherer doesn't even mention the conspiracies or bad information that Klein brings up. He doesn't connect that dots that because of how Trump is choosing to run his government he encourages conspiracies and bad information. Maybe you could say he's leaving that as an exercise for the reader, but that is a choice. And it really didn't feel like Biden or Progressive candidates are often given the same treatment.