[oh_sigh]

Sure do. This kind of double speak is rampant. One that bubbles to the top of my head is that when some people were targeted for anti-HRC messages(I think specifically it was Haitian Americans on the gulf coast), then that was labeled as "voter suppression", but targeting likely voters for Trump and spreading negative information about him, say the access Hollywood tapes, is "informing the voters"

[nopriorarrests]

Yes, it's funny. Titles for two articles, both are easy to google:

1. How Obama’s Team Used Big Data to Rally Voters (MIT Technology Review, 2012)

2. How Trump Consultants Exploited the Facebook Data of Millions (NYT, 2018)

No bias here.

[Retra]

The bias there is largely do to the differences in behaviors and histories of the parties involved. It's one thing for a charity group to run a donation center, and a wholly different thing for a life-long con artist to do it.

It is a rationally induced bias.

[briandear]

You're saying that it's ok for the media to attempt to influence people if you happen to agree with the message?

[Retra]

If I wanted to say that, I would have. The situation today is very different from when Obama campaigned. For one, the FBI & CIA didn't announce that Russians interfered during Obama's campaign. So it's really no mystery that people are paying attention to what the Trump campaign is doing.

And that's ignoring the fact that Cambridge Analytica was apparently breaking laws.

Either way, it is ok for the media to 'influence people'. If you're going to be vague, then we may as well say that is their whole reason for being. And if I wanted them to advocate one message over another, what difference is it to you? That's politics.

[Spooky23]

There’s a difference between implying that a racial/ethnic group will get hassled or deported, etc due to their race and saying that Trump said douchey things in an interview.

Voter suppression is a term of art that means something. Democrats generally don’t engage in it because more people voting usually translates to more people voting democrat.

[oh_sigh]

That's not what the ads were saying - they were talking about how CGI spent(or didn't spend) money in Haiti

[s2g]

Bit of a difference between "he said <this>" vs "news" stories about Clinton conspiring to keep drug prices high. The source for the latter was an email where someone rejected the idea of negotiating american prices so as to avoid derailing ongoing negotiations into drug pricing in Africa.

It's also not news when it's some story about a town in <state> adopting Sharia law. At least the drug pricing thing is halfway true in some convoluted form.