Support Kellogg's and Fight the Bully

Photo: Eleven, of Stranger Things, from yahoo.com/tv

If you're completely unfamiliar with the situation, first read this article by clicking here.

In a surprising move this week, Kellogg's pulled its advertising dollars from the website of Breitbart News. Many other companies have since followed suit. Breitbart is the ultra-right wing, conservative site that calls itself a "news organization." It's not. It publishes opinion, not fact, and it only publishes one type of opinion, rather than many. News organizations, of course, publish the news, which always involves facts. It also publishes all types of news, not just the type that pushes its own propaganda. The founder of Breitbart, Stephen Bannon, is essentially the man behind the strategy that won Trump the White House, and is destined to be someone of importance in Trump's machine. Think of Bannon as you will, but you can't deny that he has his own super-conservative right-wing agenda, which even Trump at times doesn't agree with.

Whatever.

The main idea of this post is to point out that, for whatever reason, Kellogg's pulled the plug on its advertising dollars on the website, which is more of a blog than a "news source." This is not unusual, as companies frequently pull its advertising from places that they feel don't (or won't) generate as much income, or reach a particular consumer group. Kellogg's insists that the withdrawal is not political, and I'm inclined to believe that. After all, one doesn't advertise on Breitbart to begin with unless one wants to reach white, super-conservative, right-wing readers. This was the case before Trump, and it's certainly the case now. If the withdrawal was political, the ads would never have been there in the first place. And since the site has generated more hits since election day, it makes sense that the company would've kept its ads there.

So what's the reason?

In an article you can read at this link, the point was raised that companies can reach Breitbart's type of readership more effectively via other avenues, such as any website of Glenn Beck's. But the main reason Kellogg's and other companies pulled the plug is because they may not have known that their ads were on the site to begin with. Apparently, ads that we see on the left and right of the screen online are not put there by those companies. They're placed by yet another company that gets paid to put ads on websites where they'll be seen. Since Breitbart's readership has grown, those companies put the ads of Kellogg's and other companies on that website. Some companies, like Kellogg's, and now like Vanguard, 3M and AARP, apparently didn't want to spend their ad dollars there, or they didn't want to reach the readers Breitbart's caters to, or, as Kellogg's said, because Breitbart's "didn't align with their values."

Fair enough. Happens all the time. From the linked article:

While Breitbart is billing Kellogg’s decision as “bigoted and anti-American,” it’s a well-established American business practice for corporations to shift their sponsorship to companies they believe will help bolster their brand. In the case of reaching conservative audiences, advertisers that exit Breitbart aren’t necessarily snubbing those consumers because other conservative-leaning outlets, such as Fox News or Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, have an overlap. 

“There are a lot of places advertisers can go to reach the same audience, and even maybe a bigger audience,” Wilkins said.

Hell, I've lost a few blog followers over the years because they may not have liked the thoughts I've espoused here. Whatever. To each his own. If I made money from this blog by putting ads on it (I've been offered many times, but I don't), that would hurt a bit because companies gauge a blog's hits and its numbers of followers when they decide what to advertise on. Blogger, in fact, may place some ads for companies that pay them to do so. If not, another company gets paid to do that, and they in turn probably give a cut to Blogger, since Blogger has an icon that I could insert into this blog which would run the ads that would generate money for me. After that, I get lost.

A Vanguard spokesperson maybe explains it better:

Vanguard said it removed its ads as soon as it became aware that they were running on Breitbart. “As a policy, Vanguard does not advertise on any overtly political websites, including the site in question,” a spokeswoman wrote in an email. She said the ads appeared as part of a “remarketing” program, which are ads that appear to clients and investors when they visit third-party websites because of their browsing history. 

“Our remarketing advertisements are limited to pre-approved sites (again, no political sites), however it was brought to our attention last week that this site was inadvertently included,” she said.

So the shocking thing here isn't that Kellogg's pulled its ads. The surprising thing is that Breitbart has pushed a boycott on Kellogg's for doing so. That's nuts! That's like me trolling the followers who have left the blog over the years. Won't do that. That's like a newspaper publishing an article against a company that decides not to put ads in that newspaper anymore. Wait--actually, it's not, because a newspaper actually is a news organization that publishes news and facts, and news and facts of different types, like local news, national news, world news, sports, money and finance, etc. Breitbart, which calls itself a "news organization," doesn't do that.

Instead, like Trump did, it declares war and attacks those people and businesses they feel have slighted or threatened it.

This is frightening for many reasons. As the linked article said:

Breitbart’s campaign against Kellogg’s is unusual on a number of fronts, not in the least because news organizations traditionally maintain a separation between their business operations and their editors and reporters so that journalists can operate independently from business interests... And whether the boycott will help Breitbart financially appears questionable, given that attacking a major advertiser isn’t likely to make the site more appealing to other brands. 

“Reporters don’t behave that way in the U.S., nor should they,” said Lee Wilkins, professor and chair of the department of communications at Wayne State University, who’s an expert in media ethics. “Most journalistic organizations have checks between the people who pay for your news work and the news work itself, so that you are as a journalist protected from those influences.”  She said she views Breitbart as a blog rather than a journalistic organization. “If you aren’t a journalism organization, then those safeguards are never in place.”

This is an important distinction. A "news source," which Breitbart isn't, cannot influence its news reporters about what news to print. It can't be seen as a bully to its own reporters, thereby creating a bias about what gets reported and what doesn't. But Breitbart can do that, as it is, solely because it's not a legit news source, but rather more of an opinionated blog. But a business of any kind can't declare war on another business because that company pulls its ads.

It's not personal. It's business. This is yet another example that shows that Breitbart, Bannon and Trump don't get that distinction. Politics and business are not personal. You can't bully and attack those who disagree with you or who don't support you. That's a tyrannical thing to do. In America, we don't bully or declare war on our political enemies, and we do not suppress the news, or only report one type of news story. That's not what a democracy does.

So, in the spirit of democracy, to fight back against the bullies, I suggest that next time you want some cereal, or some breakfast food, buy Kellogg's. Let's support the first company that in a democratic fashion pulled its ads from a very un-democratic site. Let's support the first one brave enough to take a stance.

My better half has Kellogg's Eggo's for breakfast a few times a week, and Eleven loves them. Good stuff.

Is It Me, Or...

Photo: BP icon, from its Wikipedia page.


I used to have a column in my college newspaper with the above title.  I didn't care much for the title--or, as it turns out, looking back, for my writing abilities--at the time.  And I don't care much for the title now, either, but I'll let it stand because I can't currently think of anything better.  (My writing abilities are a little bit better.)  Anyway, the column was a random series of thoughts, in the same vein as those you'll see below.  If it sounds like I'm questioning my sanity a little--well, hell, any reasonable person today, in this current culture and climate, would have to, wouldn't he?  Oh, and if you can think of a better title for such snippets, please share via the comments, and I'll consider.  As always, thanks.

Is It Me, Or...

--does anyone else feel the compulsion to scoop up the change--often of many dollars--that you see below the cashier window at any major drive-thru?  (For me, it's the local Dunkin' Donuts windows.)  I mean, I know that sounds like I'm cheap (I'm not, I'm frugal.  No, really.) but for me it's a matter of waste-not/want-not.  I'm a little more relaxed about this since I asked a cashier if homeless people scarf up the money.  She said Yes, and they don't even wait until the place closes sometimes.  Most of the window people leave the change as they drop, though they admit to picking up bills.  So lately, like Foster in my novel Cursing the Darkness (see my website address above for a sample chapter), who's in the habit of dropping empty beer cans, filled with an occasional bill, down to the alley beneath his office for the homeless guy, who recycles the cans and, hopefully, notices the occasional bill, I've been in the habit lately of tipping the window person and then dropping occasional change beneath the window for the homeless.  By the way, redeeming empty cans is no longer allowed in my state.  Someone needs to explain the reason for that to me.

--does anyone else wonder if maybe we're sold products on television we don't actually need?  I'm talking big-ticket items here, like allergy meds.  My genius ENT suggested I completely lay off the daily Claritin I was taking for years, saying that now they do me more harm than good, because they dry up and inflame my sinuses.  So I haven't taken one now in about seven weeks.  The result?  Almost no congestion, or bad headaches, or sneezing, or red eyes.  (I did sneeze and have a little red-eye today, but not too bad.)  Now, I used to have to take allergy shots every week for about eight years.  I got the needle test on my upper arm and I was allergic to 41 out of 43 things.  I used to be that guy in high school who sneezed 17 times in a row.  I used to get nosebleeds.  I mean, I had allergies.  Now?  Not so much.  But the commercials make it look like everyone suffers in the spring and summer and it's just one of life's things.  I think now: What if it isn't?  What if that's just another example of our culture of fear?  I feared an allergy attack for so long...Did I really need to?

--is it obvious that liars are lying, exponentially, by the number of times they don't say Yes or No to yes or no questions?  I had this minor epiphany recently, thinking about a conversation I recently had with someone.  This conversation ended with her saying that she says whatever she thinks I want to hear so that I stop asking questions.  My response to this was: Just be honest with me; I ask these questions because you never give me a simple Yes or No.  And then it hit me.  That's what liars do.  They let you surmise from their insinuations, so if you end up catching them in a lie, they can say, "Well, I didn't say I wasn't doing that..."  Liars don't actually lie, per se, especially if they think you're smart.  But they will insinuate, and let you incorrectly conclude from that.  Maddening.

--shouldn't we be more concerned with how quickly a car can go from 60 to 0 rather than from 0 to 60?

--does everyone think that global warming means that temperatures only get warmer?  It doesn't; it's just easier to spot when it's warmer, like this past winter over here.  And, as I pointed out recently, warmer in the winter might mean more snowfall, not less, as it snows much more when the temps are in the mid- to high-twenties than it does when it's lower than 25 degrees, cuz the air is too dry for snow when it's colder.  (I point this out to my readers in Florida, in California, and in other parts of the world, where the local leaders cancel school and call for a state of emergency when it's snows maybe two inches.)

--do oil prices skyrocket because oil suddenly become harder to transport and produce when it gets warmer, and more people are traveling?  Hmmm...Next time such a company says prices must rise because a recent hurricane made it harder to transport the stuff, I want someone lookin' into that.

--did this country give BP a mulligan on the whole Gulf thing?  Talking about oil company execs who in the movies would be wearing the black hats and twirling their mustaches while sneering...But, hey, let's point a finger at the American consumer, who made BP so popular that suddenly five of them have popped up in a three-mile radius of my house.  Why haven't we all boycotted this company and driven them out of business, at least around here?  I still make it a point not to buy gas from them.  And I want to throw something at my television whenever one of their smarmy commercials come on, the ones where they say how actually good for the Gulf community they've been, and how now everything is so awesome that tourists are flocking back.  Seriously?  Who's their spokesperson, Joe Hazelwood?

--has everyone forgotten what actual news is?  Top-heavy, bikini-clad women "accidentally" spilling milk on themselves while driving a Scion?  That's news?  A politician calling for its YouTube deletion and calling it "sleazy?"  That's news?  (He got his wish, by the way.  Why should Scion and/or YouTube buckle to this guy?)  I saw the commercial (of course).  It's blatantly silly, and perhaps stupid--but not sleazy.  It didn't exactly make me want to run out and buy a Scion.  I mean, come on, people, that was a politician calling something sleazy.

P.S.--It's been pointed out to me that I need to explain my Hazelwood reference, above.  He's the guy who drunkenly drove the Exxon Valdez aground and leaked billions of gallons of oil into the Pacific.  Perhaps he was guiding the tourist boat that overturned near Italy.  Go to the back of the class if you're over 25 and didn't know who he was.

P.P.S.--If one of these ain't just me, if it's you, too, tell me why!