Breitbart Staffers Accuse Site of Taking Cash for Positive Trump Coverage

If true, this would certainly be an interesting turn of events. Many of my conservative friends really like Breitbart over FoxNews these days, as FoxNews isn't "conservative enough" for them. I personally don't understand that, but I digress.

Anyhow, the allegations in the article are as follows:

In a bombshell allegation, three Breitbart staffers have told Buzzfeed they believe their website is being paid by Donald Trump to provide positive coverage for his presidential campaign.

Buzzfeed’s McKay Coppins reports that many staffers at the conservative website have privately complained about the website’s relentlessly positive coverage of Trump. “One current editor… said he was told by an executive last year that the company had a financial arrangement with Trump,” Coppins writes. “A second Breitbart staffer said he had heard a similar description of the site’s relationship with the billionaire but didn’t know the details; and a third source at the company said he knew of several instances when managers had overruled editors at Trump’s behest.”

Coppins also interviewed a “communications operative” who claims to work closely with Breitbart. He claims the operative had conversations with multiple editors and writers confirming the arrangement, and “one staffer claimed to have seen documentation of the ‘pay for play.’”

Source

I actually first heard this on the Today Show this morning, checked ATS and didn't see anything. In fact, there really aren't to many news outlets picking this up yet.

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if Trump -- or rather someone in his campaign was doing this. This is how Trump said he gets things done, by paying people. Trump admitted during the debate to buying politicians to everyone. This "pay to play" style of doing business is right up his alley.

I think we all have to be careful about what we think we know. We're told what to deem as "important news" and who think of as "important" based on what we're told from the media. The media, it seems, decides for us what we hear and how we hear it. Our perceptions of people and events are all carefully manipulated by the media (if we all it).

The masses generally never question where their information comes from, or ask why they're being told/shown what they are. We've become a consumer culture, simply consuming and eating everything that's fed to us without ever questioning why we're eating it up in the first place.

Everyone has an agenda, everyone has an angle.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Actors were paid $50 to wear t-shirts, carry signs and cheer at Trump's announcement, so I don't see why he wouldn't continue the practice. He'd fit seamlessly into the current political landscape we have going. Money can buy just about anything... And he's got a lot of it.

It will be interesting to see if they have proof or are just speculating.

Breitbart didn't have anything credibility in the first place so this really doesn't come as a surprise to me

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

$50 *and* a free t-shirt?! Woah!

Do people that get paid for these things have to sign NDA's? You never hear someone stepping forward saying, "I was a paid protester/supporter".

It's things like this that really make me ask a lot of questions -- more than probably most of my friends. My friends just nod their heads as they watch TV, absorbing the information without questioning why it's being fed to them.

Our realities are based off our perception. Our perceptions themselves are being toyed with and manipulated by those that control the media. The people that control the flow of information control how and what the people think.

Media hype is a commodity just like Depends, Viagra, and AAA insurance.

I'm sure Trump has a staff of professional media people like all personalities "stars"....it's politics.

I still question Trumps motives.....there is something very odd about this deal. He knew he would be found out....

a reply to: MystikMushroom

WOW....This NEVER happens in a presidential election run.....

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: MystikMushroom

WOW....This NEVER happens in a presidential election run.....

So? Is it not worth discussing? If someone wants to talk about MSNBC being paid to run favorable stories on Clinton, I'm all ears.

Just because something is common doesn't mean it should be ignored. There might be some people that wouldn't automatically assume this, and are not as informed as you.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Informed? Dude, what is in all political/presidential runs? One guess and it isn't charming people....

MONEY....Everywhere....See Scott Walker and see if he has paid anyone off yet.....Maybe not, who wouldn't like 900 mill from the Coke Bros? Effing politics man....Get ya everytime

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I see some interesting points when reading between the lines on the article:

Is Trump really the first to have done this as a candidate? Highly unlikely as majority of us here would suspect , so why now come forward with such information and negativity from one of their own candidates?

Uhm? I don't think trump will be a good president , but I do find it appealing the the establishment appears to be against him.

Not that the enemy of our enemy makes our friend , but I like to play with the thought of having an egotistical president overseeing our congress.

a reply to: interupt42

Is Trump really the first to have done this as a candidate?

What do you think?

MSM trying to get to you homey....

Stories like this are important because it shows that certain news sources, some of which are used heavily around ATS, are nothing more than propaganda outfits that sell lies and fabrications for profit and agenda.

Breitbart is horrible and has played a part in brainwashing those friends of ours that believe Fox isn't "conservative enough".

What they really mean is that Fox isn't biased and extreme enough.

originally posted by: introvert
Stories like this are important because it shows that certain news sources, some of which are used heavily around ATS, are nothing more than propaganda outfits that sell lies and fabrications for profit and agenda.

Breitbart is horrible and has played a part in brainwashing those friends of ours that believe Fox isn't "conservative enough".

What they really mean is that Fox isn't biased and extreme enough.

Holy CRAP!!! The first thing we agreed on all day today! Thanks

a reply to: introvert

Two people have slammed Breitbart, I'm curious what evidence you have to back this up that they are a propaganda outfit?

They have some excellent investigative journalists who have exposed situations like the Rolling Stones slander of UVA over false rape reports, and Lena Dunham's slander of a man in her book whom she falsely accused of rape (just a few legitimate reports that were investigative, evidentiary, true examples of journalism).

I understand you may disagree that their writers are admittedly generally conservative or libertarian, but that doesn't in and of itself make them propaganda. Look how much they piss off the establishment (on both sides of the spectrum).

MSNBC and FoxNews are more appropriate examples of propaganda...

a reply to: SonOfThor

Breitbart is known for taking stories and information and turning them in to politically-driven hit pieces that leave all context out altogether.

They are an extreme right wing propaganda site. They do not cover stories to show people the truth behind certain issues. They present the issue in a way in which only one conclusion could be made if you do not go beyond the issue and do some research.

Granted, they may have a few decent stories here and there, but the sun has to shine on a dog's ass sometimes, doesn't it?

originally posted by: introvert
Stories like this are important because it shows that certain news sources, some of which are used heavily around ATS, are nothing more than propaganda outfits that sell lies and fabrications for profit and agenda.

Breitbart is horrible and has played a part in brainwashing those friends of ours that believe Fox isn't "conservative enough".

What they really mean is that Fox isn't biased and extreme enough.

Hillary owns the entire MSM.

Now all of the sudden Breitbart is a reliable source.

What a joke. Of Course he bought influence.

You got to fight fire with fire. It's on now.

The problem with Breitbart is what Intovert already mentioned -- and for me their reputation, it's worse than Fox News.

If someone presents an argument and uses Breitbart, I automatically know they're an extreme right wing (tea party) person with a heavy duty agenda-driven argument.

I automatically pretty much dismiss their argument because their source material is going to be so skewed and slanted, so insanely out of context that it's almost invalid.

You can't have a good discussion with someone when their source material automatically stops the discussion on one end before it begins.

Context: Breitbart seems to ignore it.

I'm not going to defend other news outlets -- they're ALL guilty, but Breitbart is just plain shameless. They know their target audience will willingly lap up whatever biased and twisted propaganda they peddle, so they unashamedly push it -- pandering to their extremist audience.

a reply to: whyamIhere

Hillary owns the entire MSM.

Nonsense. She doesn't own Fox News....the most popular mainstream outlet there is.

Now all of the sudden Breitbart is a reliable source.

I said quite the opposite. I'm not surprised Breitbart sells it's faux-journalism to those with the funds.

Trump supporters are some of the most baffling people in this country. Like how can you support this man and not be getting paid for it? And if the OP is true, you DEFINITELY should be getting paid to support him.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I'd be interested in a more detailed analysis - showing where they have ignored context. By the way, I may read Breitbart, but I also read from myriad other sites. It seems a lot of their stuff obviously highlights issues that would justify / perpetuate conservative bias, but every media outlet that I know of has a bias in some respect.

I'd be interested to see where y'all prefer to get your information, and what you call reliable sources. I'll read social media, Huffpost, Breitbart, CNN, Foxnews, MSNBC, etc. and figure out the spin and make my own decision.

I'll add that since my wife and I got rid of cable (internet only but still get basic cable) I enjoy local news so much more than right or left propaganda that is spewed out all over the cable network news channels.