As both fight bureaucrats, why is Macron praised and Trump trashed?

Catherine Rampell had a good opinion piece titled "Macron attempts a feat Trump wouldn't dare" in the Washington Post.  However, I am having difficulty understanding why Trump's name is in the headline or even referred to.  Was it just instinct, or almost a requirement to refer to Trump negatively?

The article is about French center-left president Emmanuel Macron fighting France's bureaucracy and unions to make it easier to hire and fire people in order to goose the economy.  He is essentially trying to reduce regulations.  If Rampell and other reporters were paying attention, instead of focusing on Russia, they would see that Trump is doing exactly what Macron is doing here and more.

There is a major difference in how the media covers Macron: Macron, like Obama, is almost universally adored by the media and was supported for office, while Trump is despised and the media did everything they could to defeat him.  Trump has to fight not only the bureaucrats and entrenched politicians from both parties trying to protect their power, but also the media who are seeking to destroy his presidency each day, mostly with rumors and unnamed anonymous stories. 

Since the media are focused continuously on Russia instead of everything else Trump is doing, it would be a good time to summarize the Russian story after eleven months of continuous, multiple investigations and after former FBI director James Comey's and Attorney General Jeff Sessions's testimony: it is clear that there is absolutely no evidence of anyone surrounding Trump colluding with Russia to influence the election, and there is absolutely no evidence of obstruction of justice or Trump trying to impede the investigation as it continues to this day.  Both Comey and McCabe testified under oath in early May that no one had tried to block it.  There is evidence that the Obama administration illegally spied on political opponents and illegally unmasked names.  (The media and Democrats have little interest in this.)  There is also clear evidence of obstruction and collusion at the highest levels of government to keep Hillary from being charged with serial, serious violations of law.  (Again, the media and Democrats seem to show little interest in this actual obstruction.)

Why, again, is this the story instead of Trump's efforts to drain the swamp and cut regulations?  Macron gets nothing but praise for this.  Trump gets pathetic diversions if not harsh criticism.

Catherine Rampell had a good opinion piece titled "Macron attempts a feat Trump wouldn't dare" in the Washington Post.  However, I am having difficulty understanding why Trump's name is in the headline or even referred to.  Was it just instinct, or almost a requirement to refer to Trump negatively?

The article is about French center-left president Emmanuel Macron fighting France's bureaucracy and unions to make it easier to hire and fire people in order to goose the economy.  He is essentially trying to reduce regulations.  If Rampell and other reporters were paying attention, instead of focusing on Russia, they would see that Trump is doing exactly what Macron is doing here and more.

There is a major difference in how the media covers Macron: Macron, like Obama, is almost universally adored by the media and was supported for office, while Trump is despised and the media did everything they could to defeat him.  Trump has to fight not only the bureaucrats and entrenched politicians from both parties trying to protect their power, but also the media who are seeking to destroy his presidency each day, mostly with rumors and unnamed anonymous stories. 

Since the media are focused continuously on Russia instead of everything else Trump is doing, it would be a good time to summarize the Russian story after eleven months of continuous, multiple investigations and after former FBI director James Comey's and Attorney General Jeff Sessions's testimony: it is clear that there is absolutely no evidence of anyone surrounding Trump colluding with Russia to influence the election, and there is absolutely no evidence of obstruction of justice or Trump trying to impede the investigation as it continues to this day.  Both Comey and McCabe testified under oath in early May that no one had tried to block it.  There is evidence that the Obama administration illegally spied on political opponents and illegally unmasked names.  (The media and Democrats have little interest in this.)  There is also clear evidence of obstruction and collusion at the highest levels of government to keep Hillary from being charged with serial, serious violations of law.  (Again, the media and Democrats seem to show little interest in this actual obstruction.)

Why, again, is this the story instead of Trump's efforts to drain the swamp and cut regulations?  Macron gets nothing but praise for this.  Trump gets pathetic diversions if not harsh criticism.

RECENT VIDEOS