Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

NYT Reporter Rips ‘Incredibly Inappropriate’ Hannity for Giving Trump ‘Free Advertising’

NYT Reporter Rips ‘Incredibly Inappropriate’ Hannity for Giving Trump ‘Free Advertising’

Say Jeremy: What’s the Value of the Free Advertising that the MSM Gives to Hillary?

This would be funny if it weren’t so ironically hypocritical. There was reporter Jeremy Peters, of the New York Times—appearing on MSNBC—piously condemning “Sean Hannity’s incredibly inappropriate role as an adviser to Donald Trump who is essentially giving him tens of millions of dollars of free advertising.”

Just what does Peters think the MSM is: from his own New York Times to MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, the Washington Post, etc., if not one huge monolith devoted to electing Hillary Clinton and other Dems while destroying Donald Trump? If Hannity is giving Trump “tens of millions” in free advertising, what is the combined value of free advertising that the MSM is giving to Hillary Clinton?

Peters spoke after a clip ran of Hannity’s show in which Trump asked people at a rally to show their support for different policy options on immigration.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Jeremy Peters, it looks as if Donald Trump has adopted Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and the Chamber of Commerce’s position.

JEREMY PETERS: He was focus-grouping his new position right there before our very eyes. And using a news network to do so. Which I think is one of the things that’s kind of been lost in this. Is Sean Hannity’s incredibly inappropriate role as an adviser to Donald Trump who’s essentially giving him tens of millions of dollars of free advertising.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Sadly, big government needs big media, big banks, big health, big marketing, big lobby’s, and all of the other crony “bigs” to survive. There is nothing an apathetic population can or will do anything about it.

Like it or not, Trump is news.

As in … the sort of thing news organizations are supposed to cover.

Unless this guy considers the press to be just a big Classified section—Wanted: President, apply in person, in which case concern about the revenue stream would be relevant.

I laughed out loud when I read the headline, but it is no laughing matter. Years ago, Evan Thomas said the MSM was worth 5-10% for the Democrats in an election. Being a liberal, he walked back his comment when he realized how bad it made the MSM look. But his estimate is probably pretty accurate, maybe even an underestimate.

From Breitbart & elsewhere
If elected, the criminal Hillary Clinton is proposing 1st amendment changes that address concerns she has about alt-right outlets that are detrimental to her agenda. Such as Breitbart & Gateway. These sites are also routinely trashed on this site by a certain group of people who won’t stop trashing the legitimately chosen candidate of the voters in the republican primaries. I’d like to know why these people continue in this vain manner that does nothing but aid the criminal Hillary Clinton.

I’d prefer a rational response. Not one filled with invectives, personal insults, repetition, & circular logic that always returns to the same pointless conclusions. Is such rational discussion even possible anymore on this site?

Or must one march in lockstep with this group in their lost cause, pointless endeavor on this site to participate on this site.

    inspectorudy in reply to secondwind. | August 25, 2016 at 10:48 am

    Please, just go away.

    Zachary in reply to secondwind. | August 25, 2016 at 11:25 am

    Hey how about Trump’s new (old) position on immigration? He’s now in the Rubio and Jeb! club on amnesty. How bout them apples?

    jeffweimer in reply to secondwind. | August 25, 2016 at 11:46 am

    If those sites deserve criticism, then they get criticism. Just because some here don’t like them doesn’t mean they would sit still for “1st amendment changes”.

    Ragspierre in reply to secondwind. | August 25, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    “Or must one march in lockstep with this group in their lost cause, pointless endeavor on this site to participate on this site.”

    Obviously not.

    But you can whine and bitch all you want. And you do.

    Evan3457 in reply to secondwind. | August 25, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    You have been conned.

    Ragspierre in reply to secondwind. | August 25, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    “I’d prefer a rational response.”

    You won’t get one until you try questions that are not squads of straw-men.

    Nobody with a brain will take on your bullshit. It’s laughable.

    Milhouse in reply to secondwind. | August 25, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    If elected, the criminal Hillary Clinton is proposing 1st amendment changes that address concerns she has about alt-right outlets that are detrimental to her agenda

    What the hell are you talking about? The only person who has proposed such changes is your idol, Trump. Clinton wants to overturn Citizens United, presumably by excluding corporations from the first amendment’s protection. Trump is the one who wants to overturn not just Sullivan but the whole chain of decisions that distinguish our defamation laws from those of the UK.

    Breitbart (since Andrew died) and Gateway are trash. That is their nature. They lie so often and so blatantly that nothing they report can be trusted. But the first amendment protects them, just as it does Stormfront, Infowars, Kos, MediaMatters, and even Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto.

      Breitbart (since Andrew died) and Gateway are trash. That is their nature. They lie so often and so blatantly that nothing they report can be trusted.

      Assessment: TRUE.

      Bu as Milhouse & others have pointed out, the non-Trumpkins around here don’t want to see even trash sites like those forcibly shuttered by the State.

      It’s only Trump who’s running around screaming with his hair on fire and threatening to shut down any media outlet which displeases him.

    I got my answer didn’t I, 8 responses, every one of which was negative. None of which was responsive to what I presented. Every one of which dismissed out of hand what I laid out.

    And this from people who label themselves constitutional conservatives? This from people who label themselves 1st amendment defenders? Only when it’s about them is that the case. Otherwise, just like Hillary Clinton, they shout down, ridicule, dismiss, or otherwise impune those that don’t go along with their interpretation of their constitution.

    I got this response over 5 1/2 hours on a website titled Legal Insurrection. A site supposedly read by people dedicated to rule of law. This makes my point about America is going through a period of a collapse of the institutional leadership class.

    Hillary Clinton has the support of over 90% of democrats & liberals. Donald Trump has the support of 75% of republicans & conservatives. You of the 25% of republicans & conservatives who refuse to support the duly selected nominee of GOP voters will enable the election of Hillary Clinton. Given the attitudes now exposed by myself & others on this site over the past months that reveals who you are & why you’re doing what you’re doing.

    You’re just like Hillary Clinton. It’s who you are. Full of self righteousness, cocksure you’re right, & all about your own self interests.
    You put your own ego before country.

The NYT… Not worthy of having a place in the bottom of Tweety’s cage nor recommended to wrap fish in.

No value to anyone…

The liberals’ Pro-Choice doctrine is the equivalent of Muslims’ Taqiyya, but with more clumps of cells and harvested parts.

For a news program, they don’t seem to have a good understanding of public relations. Yes, being good at PR, which Trump is, can lead to favorable coverage from journalists. That’s sort of like free advertising, but actually better because its not obviously sponsored.

Being able to get free, often favorable coverage has always been Trump’s greatest strength, but its a double edged sword because it also attracts plenty of critical coverage and of course requires him to be constantly newsworthy. Schwarzenegger in California was in a similar position in 2003.

Also, characterizing Hannity’s support as “Free Advertising” is silly. Its a news & opinion show after all, and viewers are tuning in specifically for his views. By that standard, Roger Egbert was giving free advertising to every movie he gave a thumbs up.

Is this Jeremy Peters guy really named Jeremy Stephanopolis , , long lost brother or is it just the hairdo .

    Old0311 in reply to dmi60ex. | August 26, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    I’m not sure about the relationship, but they both have chicken necks. Don’t they have gyms in New York City?

NPR spends 99.9% of the Government funding it receives to gush over HILLARY! and the other 0.1% to pay folk artists.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend