Recently more and more people caught on to the fact that for (most of) us, inflammatory language generates interests which translates to clicks.
It's not about what you are saying but how you are presenting the argument.
Thoughts no longer compete on the vector of 'truth', but on a new vector of 'stickiness' - where diction and presentation are significantly focused on in the pursuit of profit...
Just like news journalists before us intended... /s
In America: political mail is the greatest offender in this regard - information designed to be digested quickly, easily, and build 'trigger words' in their constituents... in traditional mail it's the biggest waste of paper (from the hand to the trash for a half a glance)... with email you get politicians with corporates backed finances running amok with targeted advertising.
This is a future hell-scape of further political division and money flooded into the waiting mouths of advertisement agencies. This is not a pro-human decision - thanks to our current political landscape... This may be more appropriate with healthier and more stable democracies.
Then almost the whole article is dedicated to the best arguments of the opposition, while cherry picking a single proponent argument and presenting it in the worst possible light. The only time a non-opponent gets a proper quote is when Google is justifying having a pilot program - and they're more of a neutral party here.
I prefer factual and un-opinionated over "quite honest". Where I come from the former is considered the proper way to report on politics. Anything else smells wrong.
In many countries it's considered vital to democracy that political campaign ads be privileged. I don't think the US are any different?
Also from an outside perspective, the portrayal of the republican party in this article is again... eyebrow raising. Nice editorializing though. I guess polarization is still the main goal of political reporting?