Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BuzzFeed Ends $1.3M Advertising Deal With RNC Over Donald Trump (cnn.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the persuasive-speaking dept.

An anonymous reader writes: In response to Donald Trump's rhetoric, the "social news and entertainment company" BuzzFeed has decided to terminate an advertising deal with the Republican National Committee. The deal was for $1.3 million, a source close to BuzzFeed told POLITICO. The source said the reason was because of the website's employees. "[BuzzFeed could not countenance] having employees make ads, or working at the company and having our site promoting things, that limit our freedom and make it harder for them to live their lives," they said. The source said in response to whether or not BuzzFeed would rule out any Trump advertising: "In general, we have taken the position that we won't take ads for his presidential campaign." In a CNN article, RNC chief strategist Sean Spicer says, "Space was reserved on many platforms, but we never intended to use BuzzFeed." He added, "It is ironic that they have not ruled out taking money from a candidate currently under investigation by the FBI." The agreement between the RNC and BuzzFeed called for the GOP to "spend a significant amount on political advertisements slated to run during the fall election cycle," BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti wrote in an internal memo.

7 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by _xeno_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'll say here what I said elsewhere: I'm sure Donald Trump is all torn up about losing access to advertising to all those people who don't vote anyway.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    1. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Assuming Buzzfeed readers don't vote is why the GOP keeps losing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Interesting

      i mean, do these people really not understand these kinds of things are pushing more and more people to trump? i dont like him, i think he will be about as bad as obama and bush (no worse, no less)....but everyone that hates him, i hate, and their tantrums are pushing me more and more to vote trump. And I know im not the only one in this boat.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, he said the intelligent thing to say when you don't know about something.

      Are you shitting me? Are you seriously trying to suggest that there are Americans alive now who were born in the 1940s and who have never heard about the fucking Ku Klux Klan?

      It could be that in this instance Trump didn't know who David Duke was

      Well, yeah, I guess that could be the case, but Trump did know who David Duke was in 1991, and also in 2000 when Trump specifically cited Duke as the reason why he didn't want to accept the Reform Party nomination. Even called him a "Klansman", now what the hell do you think "Klansman" means?

      What do you think is more likely, that Trump does not know what the KKK is or who David Duke is, or that he's a lying sack of shit?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by dywolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      in creating a just and equitable society there is no requirement to tolerate the views of racists (ie intolerance) as the views of those people are explicitly inimical to said just and equitable society.

      "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them...We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." - Karl Popper

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  2. I'm not sure they can do that... by Nikkos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I may be completely wrong, but I thought FEC rules were If they take ads for one candidate/party they have to allow the other candidate/party to advertise as well.

    1. Re:I'm not sure they can do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's a common misconception. There USED TO BE an 'equal time' rule that applied to broadcast media. It was called the Fairness Doctrine, and it only governed TV and radio broadcasts. (so it never would have regulated something online) In essence, the rule said that if you let one guy talk on your program, you had to give the other guy the same amount of time to talk. Until recently, I thought it still existed, and there's certainly a public perception that this rule exists, but it actually ended in 1987 because of strong opposition by appointees of the Reagan administration. Here's a link with more info and a whole bunch of sources talking about the history of the rule and how it ended: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Equal-time+rule