I have been defending Steve Bannon from association with white supremacy and anti-semitism. I also defend Breitbart News, from such accusations. However, I must now defend Kellogg's from Breitbart's boycott campaign against the cereal company. Kellogg's pulled their advertising from Breitbart's because of perceptions referenced above. Breitbart in turn started the boycott in response. There is no obligation for a company to advertise with a media outlet, and there should be no penalty for ending the relationship, regardless of the reason. I can only think that this tactic will hurt Breitbart more in the long term. Monetizing web sites is no easy matter. Kellogg's undoubtedly advertised with Breitbart because of their growing readership. Although, they decided to end the relationship for political reasons, that is their prerogative. Breitbart's niche is being conservative in a mostly liberal field. Perhaps the only other site of their size is Drudge Report. I think that Breitbart should have a firewall between their editorial position and their advertising department. To end up being boycotted after spending your advertising dollars doesn't seem a worthwhile dollar placement. I suspect that other potential advertisers will take notice.