Maybe those traditional outlets ought to be denied access -- they demonstrated almost historic bias this election.
The best kind of control is when the object being controlled does the controlling themselves voluntarily. In political media, that happened a long time ago when reporters started being more concerned about "access" than reporting facts and asking politicians hard questions. The fear of "losing access" to politicians means unsubstantiated claims are rarely challenged and scandals are ignored or re-framed to not sound as offensive.
This process was amplified when CNN (and others) started pretending every story had two sides that needed equal coverage or the story would be "biased". Now any claim can gain legitimacy and unchallenged air time, with the media acting as if their claim is equally probable.
So politicians (and anyone else that wants to push propaganda) can now make any claim they want, knowing that it will go unchallenged. Even if someone argues against their propaganda, the media will present the propaganda anyway.
(and for a look at where this will evolve into, see HyperNormalisation's description of Putin's (and to some degree, Trump's) strategy of "confuse everybody by generating as many conflicting stories as possible")
With social media the propaganda can now directly be delivered to the base, so control of the main stream media is no longer needed, except maybe to limit the dissemination of unwanted information to the opposition.
For a couple of days I was hopeful that we would witness a more reasonable Trump, but it seems that he seems intent to continue following the fascist playbook. If he follows through on his promise to appoint a special prosecutor for Hillary Clinton, we will know for sure.
If you haven't done so already, I would implore everybody to subscribe to the NYT/WaPo or any other reputable newspaper. I did so today, and I'm not even from the US. Digital subscriptions are only a couple of bucks per month. They could use the support. The USA cannot afford to lose the independent media.
You have this backwards. Many people voted for Trump because they could see with their own eyes the media bias against him (and read the DNC emails working with the media to block out Sanders). NYT/WaPo are not reputable sources, they are extremely biased and so obviously so that they're working against their own mission out of arrogance.
What actual evidence is there of this? The clintons receive more than enough money through paid speeches and those would be the route you would use if you wanted to set up a quid pro quo. Using a charitable foundation to do this doesn't make sense generally nor in this case. Of course, lobbying and getting on paid boards after a government career is basically a quid pro quo( the presumption is that after you work for the industry you get a cushy career paid by the industry you helped) but that has been totally ignored this election cycle.
Not sure how soliciting charitable donations is pay to play. On the face of it laundering donations through a charitable foundation is pretty stupid and pointless and it seems unclear how donations would drive her to take the risk of doing a quid pro quo when the quid has little personal benefit to her.