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 whether

Kelloggs advertised on Breitbart, now I do.  I find it amazingly biased and PC

that Kelloggs would refuse to advertise for an obviously bogus reason, one that it clearly

won't apply to advertising on other media organizations, or marketing in other nations

around 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 than

a tiny fraction of those customers are wacky enough to insist that Kelloggs refuse to put

advertising 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 attempts

to obstruct freedom of speech to be detestable.

                     Jim Bell