That's one explanation, but it seems unnecessary. Trump was on TV
all the time. He was never not on TV, for the entire 1.5 years leading up to the election. Is there any candidate in history who would not have had better results than he did, given such a massive structural advantage? The question isn't why he won, but rather why his margin of victory was so small. (Possibly because he is an odious vainglorious born-on-third-base lump of shit? But when have we cared about that?)
TV people will protest that he had to be on TV, because he said such outrageous things. That speaks to the fact that Trump hacked TV, much as Russians are alleged to have hacked social media. It seems relevant that Trump's largely old voters get more news from TV while Clinton's largely young voters get more news from social media. Yet investigations concentrate on social media: perplexing!
In case it matters and in case someone couldn't tell, let me observe that I voted for someone else and indeed would never vote for Trump. That's no excuse for believing the obvious bullshit being peddled now.