Last week, the Associated Press helped dictate campaign coverage for a news cycle when it emphasized how its latest poll showed Hillary Clinton's favorable ratings falling.

“The survey offers a series of warning signs for the leading Democratic candidate,” the AP warned, suggesting its survey results were “troubling” for the Democratic frontrunner. Despite the fact that the AP's own poll found that a vast majority of Democratic voters view Clinton favorably, the article included interviews with three Democratic voters, all of whom gave Clinton negative reviews.

The excited AP dispatch set off a new round of Clinton-in-trouble coverage by news organizations that reprinted the AP's survey results:

• “Hillary Clinton's standing with Democrats suddenly plunged” (Business Insider)
• “Is Hillary Clinton In Trouble?” (US News & World Report)
• “Hillary Clinton's Standing Falls Among Democrats: Poll” (New York Daily News)  

And at the Washington Post, Chris Cillizza pounced on the AP's polling data and announced it was all very bad news for Clinton.

But notice what information was buried in the 18th and final paragraph of the AP's report on Clinton's falling favorable ratings [emphasis added]:

Clinton's bad marks weren't unique: Nearly all of the Republican candidates surveyed in the poll shared her underwater approval ratings. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a leading GOP candidate, saw his unfavorable ratings rise to 44% from 36% in April.

Wait, what?

Bush's favorable ratings, which have been underwater all year, lag behind Clinton's in the latest AP poll (31 percent Bush, 39 percent Clinton) and his unfavorable ratings are on the rise? Correct. But at the AP, there were no warnings about what those “troubling” numbers mean for Bush's campaign, and there were no AP interviews with Republican voters voicing their disappointment in the candidate.

For the AP, Jeb Bush and his soft poll numbers were clearly not the story. They barely even garnered a footnote.

Welcome to the often-baffling world of polling reporting for the 2016 campaign, where perceived dips by Clinton are obsessed over by the press while Bush stumbles rarely draw interest.

The famous Republican scion from a family whose supporters have raised over $100 million in campaign funds trails a buffoonish celebrity in several recent polls? The press doesn't really think that's a big story for Bush's candidacy. Imagine if Clinton were suddenly overwhelmed by a political outsider on the Democratic side, the doom-and-gloom commentary would be all-consuming.

What is a big story, apparently, is the state of Clinton's favorable ratings.

There's no real mystery why the press downplays polling results that show Clinton with a commanding lead and hypes surveys that show that gap closing, or her popularity supposedly slumping. “Coronations are boring,” noted Nate Silver, as he recently highlighted deficiencies in the media's polling coverage. Journalists would "rather see a competitive Democratic primary, which means more to talk about and analyze."

The problem for the press is that, the AP survey notwithstanding, Clinton has enjoyed a nice run of polling results in recent days and weeks.

Currently, Clinton:  

• Enjoys a 64-27 lead over Bush among Hispanic voters, and a 73-3 lead over Democratic primary opponent Bernie Sanders. (Univision)
• Leads Sanders nationally among Democratic and Democratic-leaning independent voters, 59-14.  (USA Today).
• Leads Republican contenders nationally by between 4 and 17 points. (USA Today)
• Leads Republican contenders in Virginia by between 4 and 12 points. (Public Policy Polling)
• Leads Republican contenders in Nevada by between 5 and 12 points. (Public Policy Polling)
• Is ahead of Sanders by 44 points in Florida. (Gravis Marketing)
• Has a 43-point lead in Iowa over Sanders. (KBUR-AM poll)

That last Iowa poll may be the most telling in terms of the very peculiar news coverage that Clinton polls produce, simply because there was essentially a news blackout surrounding the survey's results compared to polls that show a tightening race.

For instance in early July, a Quinnipiac University poll showed Clinton's Iowa lead shrinking to 19 points and the New York Times wrote up a separate news dispatch just about that poll. Just six days later, a We Ask America poll was released showing Clinton with a 40-plus point lead in Iowa. The New York Times reaction? It simply ignored it, as did virtually every news organization in America.

It didn't fit the script.

The last oddity: There's an entrenched pattern of media polls echoing Republican talking points about Clinton and her honesty.

Note this from Fox News:

But here's the possible trouble for Clinton in the general election: 70 percent of voters overall say that a candidate who is sometimes less than honest is a “deal breaker” for their vote -- and a 58-percent majority believes Clinton's natural instincts lean more toward “hiding the truth” than “telling the truth” (33 percent). 

What is odd is that Fox never asked voters about Bush's trustworthiness, or any other Republican candidate's trustworthiness. Fox only asked about Clinton.

The same was true of a poll released in June by CNN: “A growing number of people say she is not honest and trustworthy.”  How did Clinton's “trust” score compare with Bush's? We don't know because CNN didn't ask if voters trust Bush.

And yes, the latest AP poll is guilty of the same imbalance --  it asks if Clinton is “honest,” types up the results as bad news for the Democrat, but doesn't pose that query about Bush, or any of the Republican candidates.

Why the persistent double standard?