I think this is a rash, unfounded judgment. Sure, there may be some self-interest in some. I don't think Rush is solely motivated by his ratings. I think he has a lot of good sense and intelligent judgment, and that he is successful for sincerely presenting his ideas, which many folks sincerely appreciate.
I think Jones is a core believer in his world view, a man on a mission. I think he doesn't understand some of the subtleties of human nature and the the actual inability of evil humans to govern the world with a winning program, say, like global governance, and that their failure will be the main problem we hopefully more altruistic humans will have to deal with, or try to deal with. I have studied all his material, and take a position perhaps not too strange from Jonah's, or Colton's, that we need to question all zealots, right or left.
Hannity, however, has convinced me of his sociable good nature and good will for all Americans and his loyalty to traditional American principles. I really respect Hannity. More than anyone else.
A few others worth mentioning for comparison are Andrew Wilkow, who is a Milton Friedman/Ayn Rand economic analyst with some solid observations on why socialism and non-market expenditures are ineffective whatever we hope to accomplish with them.
The Breitbart folks are the most credible news analysts in the market right now in terms of objectivity, which is not really any kind of wholesale endorsement for them or anyone.
One of the people I truly respect, and consider articulate and intelligent, even more than Rush, is David Webb.
The fundamental problem with the mainstream is a wholesale commitment to a false narrative and regime change for the sake of a partisan cause. They have zero credibility, like some posters in here.