.

I can't find a link to the image.


*accidentally of course.

.

I can't stand her and will never give her ratings.

Yes she is attractive, but she does not have the same thing now that she use to have on Fox...(I didn't watch her
very often)...coulnd't stand her...

Now her make up doesn't look right, eye lashes or eye brows are different colors, they always look at her up
close and also her legs.....She was trying some of her LONG lost pouts, or ways to get Putin to say the right word...
didn't work for me.

Putin makes me sicker....when he talk ..there were 2 languages going on at once...and I couldn't watch it...

Oh well...

She doesn't look like a person; she looks like a nondescript blonde mannequin. As an artist, I draw and paint portraits (among other things). I always struggle to identify her because her features are not constant; they change every time I see a picture of her, which is every six months or so.

Now that she's no longer very young, they're really pushing the limits to make her continue to look like a sex object. I didn't watch the show, but I saw the photographs of her dressed like a prostitute sitting next to a bunch of men dressed in suits. I have nothing against women who work as prostitutes, but there is a problem when female media personalities start dressing like them. People who watch her show should ask themselves what they're teaching their children about the roles of men and women in our society. This woman is not a journalist; the only reason she is famous is that she is very blonde and therefore appeals sexually to the typical straight American white male. What does that tell little girls who dream of being real journalists?

why only the women?

And know damnwell they don't have to be blonde.

reminding that beauty is so much more than what is superficial. Knowing how much of a racist she is places ugliness in the forefront.

My message was for anyone who is choosing to watch Kelly. I wasn't talking to little girls but rather to their parents. I wouldn't be so sure that the children of Fox-"News" watchers know that they don't have to be blonde and sexy to be successful. You're underestimating the power of sexism.

ETA: They will never admit it, but I'm sure there are many men on DU who are watching Kelly. If you're at all honest, you cannot deny that the whole point of Kelly is that she's a sex object.

Andrew Luck is a idiot

journalistic chops.

why can't we have a channel with real news, all the time? And good journalists.

And, you, Megyn Kelly, are still a racist. There was nothing cute about that statement when you made it originally, and I'm STILL not laughing.

Your tenure at Fox was filled with hate, lies, and innuendo. And that qualifies you as a journalist ... how? The journalists I respect do ask hard questions ... when they are warranted. They seek the truth. They CARE about others. You? Not so much. You just said hate-filled crap you knew wasn't true to keep your misogynistic bosses at Faux happy.

NBC needs to be good and embarrassed at giving Ms. White Mediocrity her own show. The only good news in that article is that her much-hyped interview with Donald's BFF Vlad came in third in the ratings. The CBS interview with the Russian dissident beat her out.

Made a fool of her and everyone who watched expecting any semblance of the truth...

To see how to do a serious interview with the head of a foreign country, perhaps she could watch a few of the interviews Christiane Amanpour has done over the years. That is how it's done.

She is good at what she does.

But bringing up Amanpour, and what SHE does, immediately makes Kelly look relatively but decidedly mediocre in comparison.

Sure enough they don't and the linked article doesn't even claim they do.

Here is the actual first paragraph.

"The most frustrating thing about Megyn Kelly’s new NBC show is that it exists. In the promos leading up to the premiere of Sunday Night With Megyn Kelly, the former Fox News propagandist reveals five things we can look forward to on the show. We’re supposed to forget that while at FOX News, she was smug, condescending and, yes, racist Kelly showed herself to be throughout her stint there. The days in which she wanted it to be known that Santa is white and that’s that."


Either the OP made that up, or they did and have since edited it.

article reads differently now, it must have been edited by Arceneaux or an editor at Root. If you don't believe me, a close reading of the comments section at the link will make that clear.

Because it's obvious bullshit. Do you really think NBC would run such a promo?

She's at the low end of mediocre. I knew many student broadcasters with considerably more talent.

And I said that before I even knew her politics.

She's an inept empty skirt, which is why Putin agreed to interview with her. A tenacious, informed journalist like Rachael or Joy, would have eaten him for lunch, or at least called him on his bullshit.

You misunderstand the purpose of an interview. Asking hard questions, yes. But attacking or debating, no. The object is to listen to the interviewee's answers for the public to hear (and to ask the right questions, of course).

Watch Charlie Rose, old Larry King shows, Tom Brokaw interviews for examples. Mike Wallace was confrontational and interviewed Putin 10 years ago, but I don't have cable so can't access that interview. I imagine that was pretty tough. He didn't mince words or hesitate to bring up uncomfortable topics. That was 60 Minutes for you. But if you come with an agenda and are too partisan, you don't get the interview in the first place, because they don't trust you to do an interview vs. a gotcha argumentative debate.

Here's a clip of Charlie Rose's 2015 interview with Putin:

Pres. Obama when he interviewed him:

"Journalists & broadcasters tend to respect the office of the person they are interviewing."

...because bringing in Kelly is at least as bad as them pushing Ann Curry out a few years ago, if not worse.

They really need to get their shit together.

Which is why Putin agreed to the interview in the first place. He knew she was. Everyone knew she was.

Malcolm Nance should have interviewed Putin.

...would happily pay to watch.

Raise your hand if you watched her MSNBC debut.

Now, using your raised hand, SLAP THE SHIT OUT OF YOURSELF!!!

There's nothing wrong with being white or any other race.

I'm unfamiliar with her Santa Claus statement. Santa Claus isn't real. Did she mean he was invented in the Swedish-Netherland geographical area?

called her a prostitute. What else do you need ?

She has challenged Trump and other conservatives in different interviews.

She has a certain amount of integrity, she is intelligent and educated enough to conduct substantive interviews. She also doesn't intimidate easily. Definitely not the typical Fox airhead.

Do I agree with everything she says? no.

people criticize them mercilessly. Like Greta Van Sustern. Look up the posts in this forum about her appearance and the way she speaks.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

So, the problem I see is something that's pretty glaringly missing in the commentary piece from the OP: There's no mention about the biiiigggg elephant in the room which is that no woman other than an unusually gorgeous specimen of womanhood could have pulled this off. And being Germanic/Aryan/Nordic looking doesn't hurt.

I was trying to say that, even though she's pretty mediocre, as someone said, and has spouted some egregious repuke propaganda alt-reality crap in the past. With a straight face.

I was trying to say that she's not a great talent. But she got hired. So how does that work? A mediocre man in her position wouldn't have to be a rare specimen of beauty. He'd have to "be good enough".

But women have to pass beauty tests as well. That's classic sexism.

Hope I made sense, I'm falling asleep!

I hadn't looked at it that way, but you're right. It annoys me that she's so sexualized -- I feel this hurts other women who want to be journalists and who want to be taken seriouisly -- but it's true that if she had been male, it would have been enough to be a right-wing nutcase; sex appeal would not have been necessary.

They'll insist you're whining or worse. Even women...too many of us have internalized the double standard.

It's usually about their appearance.

Meghan Kelly is (gasp!) too pretty, so that's obviously why she got the job! And she's WHITE, too, which is horrible!

Or she's "ugly" or "weird looking"! (Greta van Sustern)

Let's just ignore the racism and misogyny of it all.

It is possible to be white, attractive, AND good at your job. That some think she's not good at her job is a legitimate criticism. I don't know. I haven't watched her much in the past. But I did see her responses to the Trump ferocious attacks on her, and she held her own with grace and professionalism. She also asked hard questions during that debate, which is what got Trump's ire up. He had even called her BEFORE the debate & asked her not to ask him that question....and she did, anyway. So kudos where kudos are due. The freepers were VERY upset with her! Their love for her turned to hatred, and they tried to get her fired, as they usually do.

I don't watch tv so I can't give examples except that I know about the event you mentioned, and I know about rw-talking points she's espoused.

Maybe the harassment accusations that she leveled--she was the first to break the bars of silence at foxworld--made her change.

the faux noose model.. corporate media is a waist of time..