It’s often the media that shapes the landscape of an election, and their level of criticism can shift a candidate’s popularity from one pole to the other; often in a very short time.
Howard Dean saw this firsthand in the 2004 election. And Hillary Clinton said the same thing happened to her, complaining that Barack Obama’s treatment was much gentler.
A recent Gallup polls proves she may be right.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are two of the most prominent people to suggest that the news media have been unfairly critical of her and her campaign. The overall sentiment of the American public seems to tilt in agreement, with significantly more Americans saying the media have been too hard on Clinton than say that about either Obama or McCain

The top complaints of the media’s overall performance were about bias, not being truthful or slanting the facts and covering shallow, rather than important issues.

Clinton has raised the soft-on-Obama issue several times, though that talk subsided some after the Rev. Write controversy and his “bitter remarks.” In Ohio, she once said, “”If anybody saw ‘Saturday Night Live, maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow.”

While more Americans disapprove of the coverage overall, Gallup reports that this isn’t necessarily bad.

Americans have not always been very charitable in their ratings of the media, so while not overly positive, the current ratings are not necessarily bad when put into that context. The media to some extent are saddled with the perception that they do not treat a person’s preferred candidate as well as they treat other candidates. This is apparent in the ratings of Clinton’s and Obama’s media treatment by their supporters, but also applies to ratings of McCain’s media coverage by Republicans.