The Mueller Report identified 10 instances that might rise to obstruction of justice. Since the media isn't doing their job of informing the public as to how strong these accusations are but instead continuously repeating that Mueller identified potential obstruction of justice or repeating Democrats' claims that the President is lawless and not providing context, which is really their job, someone must do so.
Some ideas that should be considered separately about the following, which again, the media are not explaining, is how much of this is attempted obstruction of justice, and how much is actual effective obstruction. Did any of these acts actually prevent the investigation? The fact that there is no evidence of that should be weighed heavily on the side against obstruction of justice.
In order of actual obstruction of justice
Probably not OoJ
The President's termination of Comey - if you read Mueller's summary of this, it makes no accusation that Trump fired Comey to end the investigation or end any other investigation. Beyond the Mueller Report, no one really believes that Trump fired Comey to protect himself. If anything, Trump did it to protect his staff which, if true, would potentially be obstruction of justice. Additionally, however, the whole idea of obstruction of justice as relating to firing your own employees should be considered here. As a principle-testing, hypothetical example, if a president comes to office and inherits an FBI director who makes it his mission to spend every moment investigating the president, that president would be well within his rights to fire him, but that would also technically be obstruction of justice.
Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn - Asking to stop an investigation into or prosecution of a subordinate could be obstruction of justice, but the fact that the investigation continued and Flynn was eventually found guilty should be construed as strong counter-evidence that this wasn't actually obstruction of justice. No justice was obstructed. It doesn't even seem like it was an attempt of obstruction.
Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's Investigation - like above, this is another direction that, had it been carried out, and executed as wished (telling Sessions to tell Mueller to stop the investigation). This is a little stronger than the McGahn story, because instead of replacing Mueller, it would have been stopping the investigation altogether. But the fact that it wasn't carried out again prevents this from becoming actual obstruction of justice.
The appointment of Special Counsel and efforts to remove him - Firstly, most of the content in this section falls into definitely not OoJ: demanding Sessions resign, not accepting his resignation, tweeting. Why even do they mention the President saying this was 'the end of his presidency'? While it may go to his motivations, as with many of the other events, nothing actually happened that hindered the investigation. He told McGahn to tell Rosenstein that there were conflicts of interest so Mueller must be removed. There were conflicts of interest, though they were extremely minor and unimportant. There's no question that Trump wanted Mueller removed, and he almost certainly wanted the investigation stopped. But neither happened. Imagine this were Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton being investigated. Of course they would want investigations into them stopped, even if they're not guilty of an underlying crime (which Trump wasn't), they do great damage. Especially when the media hypes every negative development from the investigation to convince Americans that Trump is a Russian agent. Wanting the investigation to stop is not a crime. Interfering with an investigation is a crime. Trump did not interfere. Even firing Mueller may not have stopped the investigation, but led to another, less careful Special Counsel.
Conduct towards Flynn, Manafort - The President's personal counsel left a message to remind Flynn of the President's 'warm feelings' towards Flynn, and 'asking for a 'heads up' if Flynn knew 'information that implicates the President''. First of all, these are not the President's actions, they are attorneys' (likely at his direction). Secondly, is it really obstruction of justice to tell someone you have warm feelings for them and ask for information related to them? I admit that it's kind of sleazy, and dirty (especially the latter), but in what way does it obstruct justice? It would matter what was done with the information if it was provided, but asking for it does not seem to me to obstructing justice. Also, criticizing the treatment of Manafort and praising his loyalty while the jury is deliberating, after it can have any effect on the prosecution or defense clearly can't affect the outcome of the trial, and there's no contention that it affected anyone else either.
Definitely not OoJ
The President's reaction to the continuing Russia investigation - this includes asking Sessions to unrecuse himself and also, having been told he wasn't being investigated, he was asking agencies to say so publicly. The unrecusal might have led to obstruction depending on what he wanted Sessions to do or what Sessions would end up doing, but the mere fact of wanting Sessions to lead the investigation is not obstruction. It's at least one step removed. Also, wanting agencies or personnel to say publicly what they have said privately is not obstruction of justice as it would not actually interfere with the investigation.
Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence - Trump didn't want the media to see the e-mails where the June 9th meeting with Russian advocates in Trump Tower was set up. Hiding information from the public is not obstruction of justice. If it was, nearly everyone in the US would be guilty. Why is this even included?
Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation - It's unclear how wanting the Attorney General of the United States doing his job might amount to obstruction of justice. To be obstruction, this element needs something additional like Sessions had already promised to close down the investigation if he were Attorney General, or Trump saying he wanted this because it would lead to conclusion of the investigation. None of that is alleged.
Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed - This is an extension of actually telling McGahn to have Mueller removed. But instead, it is Trump telling McGahn to tell the public that the story isn't true. This is another example of controlling the media but not the investigation. He was not instructing McGahn what he wanted McGahn to say to prosecutors but to the media. It is again unclear how this can be obstruction of justice, even if it's a really awful thing for the President to do. I highly doubt he's the only President to have done it, though. Furthermore, having read deeply on this topic, it is my belief that this is being misconstrued. My reading of this is that McGahn was very specific in what he told reporters, and the reporters reported it accurately (that Trump had said Mueller had conflicts and instructed McGahn to tell Rosenstein of such and that Mueller must be removed). However, after the initial reporting, the story moved from highly specific and accurate to broad and inferred. 'Trump told McGahn to fire Mueller.' This is what Trump heard and was responding to, which was an exaggeration of what had happened, but was the impression the public was getting. Trump asked/told McGahn to correct the story (specifically, Trump said he did not use the word 'fire' which is true and was also calling out the conflicts of interest). McGahn, also correctly, said that the original news stories were accurate so he wouldn't make a statement. My reading is that the source of the problems here came from the impressions and headlines that the original story created, and that's what Trump wanted to be addressed.