retail news in context, analysis with attitude

Yesterday, in a From The MNB Politics Desk report (cordoned off from other coverage to respect the desire on the part of some readers to not read about politics on MNB), I wrote about how Keurig got itself in hot water when it decided to pull advertising from the Sean Hannity show on Fox because he was less than prosecutorial in his approach to Roy Moore sex scandal that is roiling the current Alabama senate race.

I was more annoyed by the fact that Keurig seemed to back off its original position when Hannity fans started destroying their Keurig machines in protest; Keurig said it didn’t want to take sides, but I argued that this seems like a perfectly reasonable issue on which to do so.

I wrote, in part:

Right now, I have a default position for the torrent of accusations of sexual harassment being made against so many people: I believe the women.

To me, the argument that many of them waited too long to make the accusations is specious. Women are coming forward now because courage begets courage. For the first time, maybe ever, they are being believed, not dismissed. And so they are coming forward.

I believe the women.

I’ve always agreed that businesses take a chance when they take a political position … there always is a risk that they’re going to tick off half their customer base. I think companies have to be careful, though sometimes not taking a position can tick off the other half … But I think that if I had a product being advertised in the media, I’d run - not walk - away from anyone who seemed to be casting their lot with Roy Moore. And if I were Keurig, regardless of company protocols, I’d simply say that if people want to destroy their coffee machines as a way of demonstrating support for someone who may be a child molester and/or pedophile, go for it.

Again, to be clear, this is dangerous territory for any company. But sometimes it is important to take a stand, and lukewarm isn’t an option.

One MNB reader responded:

You have high credibility with your audience, and so I thank you for your comments re: Moore, Hannity, Keurig, specifically the coffee company’s obligation to do what they first did, take a position. It should not have been a risk for them to do that, and it’s disappointing that they somewhat backed off.
I hope you will continue to take up topics like this.

Well, I don’t have high credibility with every reader, apparently:

Kevin, you missed a few things in your comments.

"Innocent until proven guilty.”

Funny how this did not somehow apply to Bill Clinton.

Did you come out against Byrd and the KKK?

Stop being so foolish, support for a candidate does not assume culpability.

Every time I read your column you are on the wrong side. At what point do you understand that all this commotion is what got Trump elected in the first place.

I would give everyone the benefit of doubt under this situation (yes even you Kevin) and we cannot as a society assume immediate guilt. The media has been trying to smear every Republican they can but I seem to have missed all the Menendez stories.

For the record…

I agree with Mitt Romney, who said that the “innocent until proven guilty” standard is for courtrooms, not this case. These events took place so long ago that there probably never will be charges or hearings.

I agree with Mitch McConnell, and most of the Republicans in Congress, who seem to have decided that Moore’s protests are weak and lack credibility.

I agree with Hannity, who now is saying that if Moore does not come up with proof of innocence within 24 hours, he ought to get out of the race.

I believe the women. It strikes me as a simple choice, and I’ve made it.

if you think this makes me foolish or wrong, that’s fine. You’ve made your choice.

I actually agree with your point about Bill Clinton. (I think. The Bill Clinton argument is fine, unless it is a way of not addressing the Roy Moore issue.) Michelle Goldberg had an excellent and thoughtful column in the New York Times the other day about how “revisiting the Clinton scandals in light of today’s politics is complicated as well as painful,” because “Democrats are guilty of apologizing for Clinton when they shouldn’t have.”

As for Robert Byrd’s membership in the KKK … I never lived in West Virginia, so I never had the opportunity to vote for or against him. But membership in the KKK would’ve been a deal-breaker for me.

I do live in the New York metropolitan area, and for the record I read a lot of stories about the corruption trial of Senator Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey). So yes, you have missed them.

As for your observation that “all this commotion is what got Trump elected in the first place”… you’re probably right about that, too.


I do think, in retrospect, I made one basic mistake in this story - putting it into the realm of politics.

This ought not be thought about as a political story. This is about human decency.
KC's View: