This is an apple; this is an orange. Although they are both fruits, one really wouldn’t confuse one with the other would they? As a matter of fact, they are so different that they are used to illustrate differences in things obscured by subtlety or even subterfuge. If we attempt to compare a sports car and an SUV, we begin with noting that they are both motor driven four-wheel transport vehicles but to compare load carrying capacities would be ridiculous. You might say that it is like comparing an apple with and orange.
Take for example presidential candidates and, more specifically, the terms used to describe distinguishing features which voters might use to choose one or the other. Trust is certainly a very important consideration and events under this heading could not be more different for the two major party candidates. Clinton’s demonstrated capacity for convenient ‘truth telling’ has seriously impinged on her honesty factor but no such allegations are attached to Trump, yet both their ‘trustworthiness’ figures are quite negative.
You may not like what Trump is saying but nobody believes that he is not telling it like he sees it. Trump is pure, unvarnished blunt. His ‘trust’ numbers have to do with the direction he is proposing for the country and voters need time to weigh and balance ideas about change. People in this period of consideration as well as those who have concluded that it is the wrong direction, are lumped into this ‘trust’ category.
For the media to ignore Clinton’s excursions into fantasy land would be to damage their own credibility and so they conflate Trump ‘trust’ with Clinton ‘trust’ minimizing the damage it does to her candidacy with a ‘he does it too’ conclusion.
You do see the difference between apples and oranges don’t you?