The Daily Telegraph's headline feature 'Laura Kuenssberg: The most divisive woman on TV today?' demonstrates the worst of not just the public's views of media, but the media itself.
Certainly those who work in the MSM (mainstream media as it is unaffectionately know) are barraged with abusive and threatening accusations of bias, lies and corruption on a daily basis.
The change in information (or misinformation) sharing has created polarised camps across the political spectrum with individuals sharing views and news that match the ideologies of their own group. When confronted with reporting that does not fit with a particular group think, the cognitive dissonance created has seemingly engineered an atmosphere where personal attacks are considered acceptable.
It's said that the art of the compromise is that all parties are equally dissatisfied, which probably means that Kuenssberg is on the right track by simultaneously being called a right-wing and left-wing mouthpiece.
Of course, many people in the public eye receive abuse as social media has provided people with an open and direct platform to share their anger, or worse.
What is different is the fact that a leading broadsheet has decided to declare Kuenssberg 'divisive' herself, rather than examining the motivations of why she's singled out for abuse.
It is clear that the traditional press are, in parts, struggling to catch up with shifting public behaviour. Marking out Kuenssberg, however, will only draw further attention and prospective abuse on this political journalist. The media has a responsibility to the public, but it also has one to its journalists who are now, more than ever, at the whim of public feeling.
In an age when politics in increasingly polarised, Kuenssberg finds herself stuck in the middle of the maelstrom, attracting vitriol from both sides. But could it be the fatal combination of sexism, a Scottish accent and social media that has made the opprobrium more intense?