The month leading up to the Presidential Election has seen Donald Trump’s poll numbers drop amidst the release of a video in which he was exceedingly profane during filming for television show Hollywood Access. There is no disputing the necessity of the media releasing this video; however, the media isn’t going after Hillary Clinton in quite the same way as they are going after Trump.

     In a campaign speech in January 1996, Hillary Clinton referred to teenage black males as “super-predators,” and at a Planned Parenthood event in 2009 she praised a former KKK supporter and racist eugenicist saying, “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously.”  There is no disputing the fact that the media hasn’t covered these videos nearly as much as Donald Trump’s offensive video, let alone released them at all.

     Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is famously quoted referring to African Americans by saying “They are human weeds, reckless breeders,” and that they are “spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” She has also said, “we don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population,” and spoke in support of the KKK in 1926.

     Even a Google search can reveal this information, so we are left wondering why the media has not covered or released the video of Hillary Clinton stating her admiration of Sanger. Despite relentlessly stating that Donald Trump is racist due to certain statements regarding Mexico, it seems as though the media has overlooked the equally if not more alarming statements by Hillary Clinton.

     The media has also relentlessly covered the lawsuit against the fraudulent Trump University and his failure to pay taxes due to legal loopholes in the tax code. However, despite thoroughly covering the Clinton Email scandal, it is the sheer severity and quantity of other instances of corruption committed by Hillary Clinton that the media has not covered that is concerning.

     In 1993, then Governor and First Lady of Arkansas Bill and Hillary Clinton were investigated for their role in eliciting an illegal loan for personal profit, in which fifteen associates with were charged with forty separate crimes. In 1996, First Lady Hillary Clinton was investigated for obtaining confidential information she did not have clearance for in order to use for political purposes.

     In 1993, the Clintons were investigated for firing seven staff members in order to appoint friends and political allies. Similar practices were called into question in 1996 when Bill Clinton was up for re-election. There was also an FBI investigation into possible campaign donations made by China to the DNC and the fund-raising practices of the Clintons.

     These are just a few of the many unethical practices the Clintons have been investigated for. These do not include the scandals in which the media has been forced to cover due to timeliness, such as evidence of pay-to-play, and corruption within the Clinton Foundation and Secretary Clinton’s dangerous, and by definition illegal use of classified information on a private server in her basement, which was less secure than a Google account.

     The media has covered the Clinton’s unethical and illegal practices as unrelated, independent circumstances as opposed to a trend in behavior. That is, if they have decided to cover them at all.

     In 1996, records showing unethical behavior by Hillary Clinton at her partner law firm Rose Law disappeared shortly before Bill Clinton took office, later being found in the White House years after a Federal Subpoena called for their release. The Clintons and their administration claimed they did not have them.

     The Clinton’s willingness and ability to cover up evidence and impede a federal investigation are highly concerning. Considering that the Clinton’s were investigated for wrongdoing in over a dozen separate instances, claiming coincidence is to blame for the sheer number of investigations and no prosecutions would serve to be contrary to logical thinking.   

     To cover these instances as mere coincidence, let alone the decision not to cover many of these instances in any capacity is evidence of severe bias on the part of the media.

     The media’s coverage of Donald Trump’s unethical and potentially illegal behavior has been thorough and rightly so. However, the coverage of his unethical words and actions compared to those of the Clinton’s is not nearly proportionate, leading one to the conclusion that the media has displayed its bias heavily during this election cycle.