My family was talking about this at dinner in response to someone who wasn't even voting for her, but felt that the media has given her a raw deal. I agree. (In the interest of disclosure, I voted for her, but I will certainly vote for Obama in November). The example that the letter to the editor gave was that one headline, in response to a delegrate sweep in some state: "Hillary steals election." I think you can look at that BOTH ways. As in, steal in baseball, which is positive. OR steal as in illegal and immoral. I have watched for weeks the sound bites coming out of Comcast as I bring up my screen. ALL NEGATIVE. And this way was before Obama had cinched the delegate count. It would be nothing more than a sentence, but I would click on it, and be surprised to see that the story behind hte negative soundbite was nothing more than a simple reporting of the facts.

Being a journalist, I'm sure you're no stranger to the concept of the hook. Make the headline dire or punative or "catchy" in order to draw the reader in. I have been, frankly, horrified at the sort of headlines that have appeared in the internet media. Nine times out of ten they did NOT reflect the story itself, and were either sensationalistic to get you to click or were downright misleading to create a negative opinion about her. The media has, IMO, hated the Clintons from day one. Remember that insane business about Bill's haircut. Which, it turned out, WAS COMPLETELY MADE-UP!!!!

So, yeah, sexist pigs.