Butt Hurt @ Breitbart

If a story published by the Associated Press is accurate, then the management of the Breitbart website is experiencing a case of butt hurt.

From The Hill: “Kellogg Co. says it is pulling its ads from Breitbart News, the conservative website whose former chairman Stephen Bannon will serve in Donald Trump’s White House.”

The Associated Press story quotes Breitbart management as saying, “Kellogg’s decision to blacklist one of the largest conservative media outlets in America is economic censorship of mainstream conservative political discourse. That is as un-American as it gets.”

Breitbart management couldn’t be more wrong.

There is nothing un-American about a company deciding not to advertise with a particular publication. Kellogg is exercising its freedom of speech by pulling its ads from Breitbart.

Also, Kellogg is in no way engaging in censorship. Kellogg isn’t preventing Breitbart from publishing what it wants to publish.

Kellogg’s decision comes shortly after Breitbart lost another source of advertising.

From Bloomberg: “AppNexus Inc., operator of one of the biggest digital advertising services, has barred Breitbart News from using its ad-serving tools because the conservative online publisher violated its hate speech rules. . . Breitbart doesn’t buy ads directly using AppNexus. However, the publication shows ads bought through multiple automated online ad networks and exchanges. Now that Breitbart is barred, it won’t get ads from the exchange that AppNexus runs. It’s unclear how much of a financial impact this may have, but it could lower the price of ads on Breitbart. AppNexus, backed by large companies like Microsoft Corp., News Corp. and WPP Plc, is an important source of ad dollars for many online publications.”

As for Breitbart’s claim that it publishes mainstream conservative political discourse, that is debatable. Plenty of stuff published by Breitbart is anything but mainstream conservative political discourse.

For example, a little more than two years ago, Breitbart ended up with egg on its face when it published the following claim about the current U.S. Attorney General.

That Breitbart story identified the wrong Loretta Lynch.

Then last year, Breitbart published the following claim about Sojourners magazine founder Jim Wallis.

Breitbart’s claim about Wallis was utterly false, as evident by reading what Wallis actually wrote.

If companies refuse to advertise on Breitbart, then members of Breitbart’s management need to face that reality like adults, instead of acting like they need a whaaambulance.


One might wonder if Breitbart’s Nero is fiddling while Breitbart burns.

Everybody Knows BMD Is Impossible
The Fruits of Compassionate Open Borders
  • jim_m

    David, you wouldn’t know mainstream conservatism if it walked up and slapped you in the face. And I’ll bet there are several dozen people here that would like to put that to the test.

  • LiberalNightmare

    How am I going to know that I need to buy Kelloggs corn flakes instead of Kirkland corn flakes, if Kelloggs wont advertise on breitbart?

    Oh wait, I forgot … Hillary Clinton will never be President.

    • Sky__Captain

      I do like the last part of your post.

      I consider it a feature, not a bug.

    • jim_m

      Says she’s considering a run in 2020. Since the dems have no one else in line to run she will likely get the nomination.

      • That’s assuming she lasts that long.

        You get one chance at the golden table – and she failed. There’s no reason to expect she’d do better – and if the economy DOES do better there’s pretty much nothing she can promise that’d help.

      • Hank_M

        Probably trying to keep the “donations” to the Clinton [crime] Foundation from drying up.

  • Charles Harkins

    I’m not a Breitbart.com fan. Don’t read them and don’t eat Kellogg. I also am not a fan of this type of boycott. Businesses should not involve themselves in political disputes. I might consider making an exception for David. The examples he gives of Breitbart’s faults don’t even rise to NY Times levels of misreporting.

  • Sky__Captain

    “There is nothing un-American about a company deciding not to advertise with a particular publication. Kellogg is exercising its freedom of speech by pulling its ads from Breitbart.”

    I consider these as true statements.
    However, it’s a good thing that Kellogg did not decide to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding. That costs big money.

    • jim_m

      Let’s not get carried away with this silly notion of freedom of conscience. You are free to think whatever you want – as long as you think the right things.

  • Hank_M

    “If a story published by the Associated Press is accurate”

    You mean where they state: “Breitbart has been condemned for featuring racist, sexist and anti-Semitic content.” without offering any evidence whatsoever supporting those claims?

    The AP must be one of those fake news sites I’ve been hearing about from the alt-left.

    • Retired military

      “”If a story published by the Associated Press is accurate”‘
      then Hillary will be inaugurated in 51 days or so

  • Retired military

    I could care less about Kellog advertising on Breitbart or not.
    If Kellogs doesn’t want to that is fine. Conservative companies don’t have to buy advertising in the NY Times.

  • Mary Gehman

    It’s my choice if I read Breitbart or not; it’s my choice to purchase Kellogg’s products or not. Seem to me that it’s also true that Breitbart can print what they want and Kellogg can advertise where they want. It’s a beautiful thing when our American philosophy all works like it should! I remember when Chick-Filet stood their ground and remained closed on Sundays and their sales and stock sky-rocketed. And, it’s my personal opinion that bars and restaurants should be able to decide which crowd they want to cater to…smoker’s or non-smokers. It should be the business owner’s choice, not the government’s. And, it’s the customer’s choice where they want to eat and drink, with smokers or without.

  • pennywit

    1) If advertisers want to pull their dollars from Breitbart, that’s certainly their First Amendment right. Breitbart also has the First Amendment right to complain about it.

    2) In case you haven’t noticed today’s “mainstream conservatism” is quite different from “mainstream conservatism” ten or twenty years ago.

    • Vagabond661

      We haven’t changed. The way we are described has been hijacked.

      • pennywit

        Um … now that’s just preposterous. ANY political coalition will naturally change its coalition over time. The Democratic Party has moved measurably leftward over the last decade and change, and the Republican Party has moved measurably rightward over the same period.

        • Hank_M

          Gotta disagree with that.
          The dems did indeed move leftward as did the repubs.
          Before this last election, it almost seemed as if we had one major party, the so-called uniparty that supported open borders, increased spending, “diversity” and a complete disregard for what we might call average Americans.

          I think Vagabond is correct.

        • Vagabond661

          I haven’t changed my views/opinions in 40+ years but the definition of my views have changed.

          But as far as the party moving right, it started 10+ years ago with the Tea Party and the opposition to the disaster which is Obamacare.

          The GOP lied repeatedly to us to get elected using Obama as fund raising. While having majoritities in the House and Senate, they gave lip service to stopping any Obama agenda.

          What is your definition of a conservative? Just fiscal? Just social? It’s fine to copy and paste.

          • pennywit

            There are, honestly, several definitions of “conservative,” But for the purposes of modern American politics, I’ve generally defined a “conservative” as somebody who holds a variety of fiscally (i.e., deficit hawks, low taxes, and so forth) and morally conservative positions (i.e., pro life, anti-pornography, although the latter has been on the wane for several years), and generally combined that with a strong sense of nationalism and law and order and a preference for an aggressive foreign policy.

            There used to be a significant overlap between the two parties, with a cadre of political moderates, conservative-ish Democrats, and liberal-ish Republicans keeping things relatively centered. But both parties have polarized over the past decade — something the Pew (among other polling organizations) has been tracking for a while.

            From sampling both left- and right-wing media, It’s seemed to me that since 2001 or so, “conservative” and “liberal” have started to become less about specific policy preferences and more of a view that “we’re good and they’re evil” evinced by partisans on both sides.

            I happen to think that 2016 is going to be an inflection point. Stephen More is obviously biased, but I think he has a point when he says that in the wake of the 2016 election, the GOP is now the party of blue-collar economic populism.

            If blue-collar workers — basically, labor, and long part of the Democratic coalition — have permanently shifted their loyalty to the Republican Party, then, yes, conservatism has changed.

          • fustian24

            Left and right are big tents, no question about it.

            But I’ve always thought that the essence of the right is a belief in personal responsibility.

            And the essence of the left is class war.

            Both sides are imperfect vehicles for these ideas, and individual people are all over the map, but I think this gets to the core of it.

          • pennywit

            So we need to relax because our politics are …. two tents?

          • fustian24

            That would be what we call a metaphor.

          • pennywit

            I met her for what?

          • For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.

          • pennywit

            That reminds me of a story somebody told me once. He was at a concert at a venue that had a pretty big lawn where people could set up chairs and hang out. This guy was hanging out there with his buddies, and a couple girls came up to talk to them. One of these girls sat on the guy’s lap. They broke out the beer, and offered the girl one. She said, “No thanks, I’m fifteen.”

            The guy just stood up. “You. Go. Now!!!”

          • pennywit


            Somebody on the left side of the aisle would tell you that the right’s essence is to safeguard the rich, while the left is interested in justice of all stripes.

          • fustian24

            Well, your statement about the right could be more properly characterized as: the right does not believe in socialism. They believe you should stand on your own. You know-personal responsibility.

            The second is just a nicer way of saying class war.

            So we agree!

          • pennywit

            Don’t know if we agree or disagree. I’m just contrasting the perception of the left vs. the perception of the right.

          • fustian24

            But…there was no contrasting perception.

            You see the exact same thing as I do.

            You just mischaracterize it!

          • pennywit

            I doubt you and I see the same thing. I see two worn-out coalitions that haven’t changed since the late 1980s/early 1990s and are vastly out of touch with the American people.

          • fustian24

            Well, now you’re talking about the the two parties and not the ideas that are supposed to be behind them and that’s a whole nother thing.

            One of the things that’s clear is that the Republican party does not see itself as conservative. That came as a shock to me, but there it is. The left keeps saying that Republicans have moved further to the right, but this is just nonsense. They have slowly drifted left. God knows what Trump will do with it, but he may actually change things.

            The democrats have to decide whether to go the full Karl or whether they’re going to go back to being a more populist and centrist party. And it’s going to depend a lot on how they view Bernie’s loss. Some people think that he did so well BECAUSE he’s a socialist. Some thought his support came from democrats that simply couldn’t stomach Hillary or Trump.

            But one thing is sure. The left really needs to quit equating border security with racism. That’s hurting everybody.

          • pennywit

            One of the things that’s clear is that the Republican party does not see itself as conservative. That came as a shock to me, but there it is. The left keeps saying that Republicans have moved further to the right, but this is just nonsense. They have slowly drifted left. God knows what Trump will do with it, but he may actually change things.

            I have to take the time to locate it, but there is survey research from Pew that indicates both parties have become more extreme over time.

            But one thing is sure. The left really needs to quit equating border security with racism. That’s hurting everybody.

            It’s a very fine line, and people cross it. The Southern Poverty Law Center has reported an uptick in racist incidents, including schoolchildren harassing their Latino classmates and saying Trump will deport them.

          • fustian24

            I’m sure you can find a study that proves anything you want. But when I look at the Republican party over my rather long lifetime, it simply has not moved to the right.

            When you realize that the essence of the right is a belief in “personal responsibility”, it’s clear that the GOP has clearly been moving away from that. Federal programs like the prescription drug programs and Common Core, are examples of a GOP that has been moving further to the left.

            The point of the Constitution was to hold federal power in check. The conservative point of view is to support a weaker federal government and more power to the states. For years the left has tried to conflate “states rights” with racism, but this was one of the fundamental methods in the Constitution to prevent excessive federal power.

            And when you talk about movement of a political party, this is tricky since, like for global warming, your starting point is crucial. If you start looking all the way back to the founding of the Republican party, they were a fairly radical group at the time. If you start at the time of Calvin Coolidge, the party was a party of the rich and of central government. But the wealthy are largely democrats now, and it is true that the GOP has moved to the right of that position.

            What I will say is, during my lifetime, the GOP has moved towards support for a stronger federal government and a bigger social safety net. When tested against my definition of what “right” means, this is a move to the left. But even that is subjective. The word “conservative” originally indicated support for monarchy.

            And the Southern Poverty Law Center? I’m told they were a respected institution at one point. But it’s now really just a tool to scare money from rubes. Here’s the Nation on SPLC (after Republican losses in Congress several years ago):

            The sun is dipping low in the evening sky over the Republican Party as the Other Leading Brand… It’s also horrible news for people who raise money and make money selling the notion there’s a right resurgence out there in the hinterland with massed legions of haters, ready to march down Main Street draped in Klan robes, a copy of “Mein Kampf” tucked under one arm and a Bible under the other.

            What is the arch-salesman of hate mongering, Mr. Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, going to do now?

            Ever since 1971, U.S. Postal Service mailbags have bulged with his fundraising letters, scaring dollars out of the pockets of trembling liberals aghast at his lurid depictions of hate-sodden America, in dire need of legal confrontation by the SPLC.

            Protecting our border is not a fine line, it’s an obvious necessity. And anybody that actually cares about the fate of the Mexican people or our own citizens ought to support it. Because everybody knows that there can be no substantive discussion on immigration until AFTER the border is secured, anybody that refuses to secure the border first is implicitly supporting the current situation in which large numbers of very vulnerable people both in Mexico and the US are exploited for financial and political gain.

            There’s some actual hate for you right there.

          • And if not a sufficient amount of cash will produce a “study” to support whatever it is the bearer of the cash wants it too.

            …Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

            Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.


          • Brett Buck

            Of course, there’s not a scintilla of evidence to support that theory, and abundant evidence to the contrary.

          • pennywit

            Which theory?

            * My theory that the parties have moved more to the extreme?
            * My theory that 2016 is an inflection point that might change the party system?
            * Left-wingers’ perceptions of the right wing?
            * My theory that left-wingers hold that perception?

          • Vagabond661

            The foundation to being a conservative is the Constitution and of course a limited federal government.

    • Advertisers choosing not to purchase advertising on Breitbart are exercising their Property Rights. 0bama Care’s mandates are a violation of those same Property Rights.

  • Charles Harkins

    Has anyone got an example of a corporation withdrawing advertising from a lefty site/publication???

  • Retired military

    Off Topic
    Pelosi retained minority house leadership. Great news for Trump. Just what the dems need.
    House minority leader – California
    Senate Minority leader – NY.
    The dems can stay on the coasts and continue to lose elections.

    • pennywit

      In Pelosi’s case, I would argue the more important distinction is that she is old guard at a time when the Democrats desperately need fresh blood in leadership positions.

      • Retired military

        What do you think Schumer is ? Chopped liver? Schumer is 66 and has been in political office since Reagan.

        • Only if Jessie Jackson isn’t in town. 😉

    • jim_m

      Average age of House GOP leadership is 47. Average age of House dem leadership is 76.

      The dems have no new ideas, no new blood and no future because the party leadership is doing everything possible to kill it in the womb.

  • Rdm42

    There is also nothing unamerican about that company, in turn, organizing a boycott of Kellogs.

    • Scalia

      Who said it was un-American?

  • Wild_Willie

    Every news publication and media has aired or published stories that turned out untrue. The NYT’s actually has a ‘corrections’ section. As always David, your unwillingness to understand what is going on is profound. As I said before to you, take some time off to read and learn. ww

    • The correction section… is that the smudge on the last page of the want ads that turns out to actually be corrections and retractions set in 2-point Arial type? The one you need a strong magnifying glass to read?

      Yep, hard to miss how the Gray Lady is up front about the corrections!