After Blue Nation Review published "#HillaryCoverageIsCrap," the hashtag is trending big. It's a decades-old argument: defenders say that when contrasted with Trump's coverage, the media's treatment of Clinton is sexist and biased. Critics think she deserves the scrutiny she gets and even argue that the media lets her off easy. Do you consider #HRCCoverageFair or #HRCCoverageUnfair?
Feminist blogger Melissa McEwan, author of the "#HillaryCoverageIsCrap" story, argues that the media circulates manufactured narratives about her integrity and trustworthiness, then claims that where there's smoke, there must be fire. Has there been similar discussion of Donald Trump's trustworthiness?
Not only do Hillary's critics think the coverage of her is fair, many think it doesn't go nearly far enough, and that she deserves more critique from the media than she actually gets. She is no stranger to power and politics.
A recent New York Times piece in which Clinton's gestures were analyzed by behavioral experts was met with outrage by her supporters.
But her detractors claim she's gotten away with numerous crimes, and it's the media's duty to point that out.
Many Clinton fans are glad to see a defense of their candidate and a critique of how she's been covered circulating on social media.
Clinton haters claim that she has only benefited from being part of the establishment.