From: Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> On 12/04/2016 03:56 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
And of course you say that's not a political action, and is the same as these other supposed companys who did not make such public statements.
Kellogg's wanted to retain their customers. Their customers didn't want the company supporting Breitbart with advertising. You are writing this as if there is only one kind of Kelloggs customer, and that customer "Their customers didn't want the company supporting Breitbart with advertising. "Well, I'm a Kelloggs customer, and while before I heard this I didn't care whetherKelloggs advertised on Breitbart, now I do. I find it amazingly biased and PCthat Kelloggs would refuse to advertise for an obviously bogus reason, one that it clearlywon't apply to advertising on other media organizations, or marketing in other nationsaround the world. So, they quit advertising on Breitbart. I don't blame them; their shareholders would throw a shitfit if they lost customers by continuing to run their ads in spite of known customer dissatisfaction with what is being paid for by those ads, Presumably, Kelloggs has at millions of regular customers, and millions have"customer dissatisfaction" with a lot of external facts. But I strongly doubt that more thana tiny fraction of those customers are wacky enough to insist that Kelloggs refuse to putadvertising on a site based solely on some vague idea of political orientation. At this point, I am inclined to join the anti-Kelloggs boycott. I access the Breitbart website an average of once a year or so, but I find such lame and unjustified attemptsto obstruct freedom of speech to be detestable. Jim Bell