Slashdot Mirror


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

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.

10 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Free Advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A private company choosing not to run ads for a dull demagogue is not "against free speech" - it's that company practising its free speech right to say what it wants to say, and no more.

    You get authoritarian sorts at all points of the political spectrum, from those who have a problem with criticism of a particular race to those who have a problem with "anti-American" speech. The authoritarian will cry to government for protection from whatever it is he doesn't like, even if it's none of his business.

  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:Free Advertising by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Loony Left (as you call it) is actually trying to suppress free speech, or haven't you seen pictures of the Left wing rioting and attacking of Trump supporters for being nothing but Trump Supporters. If the roles were reversed, it would be called "Hate" and Misogyny (for the physical attacks on women). But alas, it is against Trump supporters so ... we're good!

    FYI, I am not voting for Trump, was never going to vote for GOP either.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  4. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do you want to vote for him? He's unrepentantly racist, why do you want a guy like that leading the country? He doesn't let any perceived insult go unanswered, you really want a guy like that in control of the most powerful military on the planet? We don't need a would-be strongman trying to run the country like Putin runs Russia. Trump's word doesn't mean anything, he'll say something one day on video and the next day he'll say he never said that. He's a sociopath who will say anything to win or escape that particular moment, with no thought to tomorrow. And casting your vote for him just because there are so many people who hate him is probably the worst reason to vote for someone that I've heard so far. "A strong majority in the country doesn't like that guy? That's my candidate!" How about looking to the smaller parties to find someone who actually represents what you believe instead of some stupid troll protest vote?

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  5. Re:I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because the alternatives are green, libertarian or so fucking crooked she really believes she's above the law.

  6. Re:Safe space by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To be honest, the Liberal Left has made Mockery (see John Stewart) a viable political commentary tool.

    Comedians have used mockery, satire, etc as a tool of political and social commentary forever. That's literally what their job is. It's not exactly a new phenomenon. And it's also not limited to any part of the political spectrum, look at people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh if you'd like to see conservatives using mockery in political commentary.

    It's also not necessary to capitalize "liberal left" (which is also redundant), or mockery, and it's Jon Stewart, not John.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  7. 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

  8. Re:Obamaism by tsqr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Remember how bad McCarthism was, but McCarthy only targeted State Department employees.

    McCarthy's House Un-American Activities Committee persecuted many people not employed in any capacity by the Federal government. Do the words, "Hollywood blacklist" ring a bell?

  9. Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Really? He showed you how to spell losing, and you still spelled it "loosing"?

  10. 50-60 years ago by aepervius · · Score: 5, Informative
    He was a FORMER member of KK and profusely apologized for it. Read your own link !

    It's also true that Robert Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s and helped establish the hate group's chapter in Sophia, West Virginia. However, in 1952 Byrd avowed that "After about a year, I became disinterested [in the KKK], quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization," and throughout his long political career (he served for 57 years in the United States Congress) he repeatedly apologized for his involvement with the KKK

    Only people which are extreme right wing and disinterested into fact would use that photo and "kiss" against Clinton or Byrd. I am sorry but everybody makes error while young, and since he apologized along his long carrier of 50+year , I am seeing painting him as having KKK tie as either chicaneries or plain old lies. Either way it does not paint a good picture about people which uses this against Clinton. Disclaimer : I do not like Clinton I just don't like fact distortion.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org