Megyn's stock fell pretty rapidly during the POTUS campaign. It kinda coincided with her decision to cut her hair off. I don't really recall the last time I watched a Kelly File ... probably one of the bought/paid-for riots (Baltimore?) ... anyhow. All the best to her, but I don't think she'll be resurrecting NBC's news program either.
Ratings will be out the roof early, then drop rapidly. Used to watch her often, not so much since I thought she got mean spirited - bout the same time as hair cut come to think of it, maybe I just didn't like the look.
Back when she had long hair I thought Megyn was perfect. She had the combination of being hot and smart. Then she cut her hair and had an agenda against Trump on every one of her shows, even when there were breaking news hours earlier of large email drops from WikiLeaks on the DNC. After that I moved on to Abby Huntsman. She's now the bomb in my eyes.
She's "thank you God, I don't have to go to school" hot, but I'm not impressed with her as a commentator. She can talk smack pretty well, but she's not a persuader and not particularly smart.
Maybe I'm too old (43yrs) or been married too long (20yrs) but I've never really focused on how attractive the commentators were. Well...only if they are really unattractive (Cindy Crowley?) do I care.
It's not your age or duration of your marriage. It's your maturity. In an seriousness, I notice their looks, but I'm not going to watch or listen to a commentator because of her looks. Otherwise, I'd watch Tomi Lahren and would never watch a show hosted by a dude. Having said that, Fox News has sorta made female appearance of high importance. I laugh about it, but it's sad.
I don't know. I thought she was tougher on Hillary and her Democrat stooges than Trump. When Trump said something stupid, which was often, she reported fairly on it. It just seemed to me the lies and the bulls!t from Hillary's campaign elicited the "Seriously Debbie? Do you think we're idiots?" response from her. It's stupid she's going to NBC now. But maybe NBC viewers will reel in horror when they hear an analysis that didn't come Podesta's a$$.
+ she went through law school and, thus, was educated in the difference between fact and opinion. I wish all the regular TV news folk had this too. That said, I also think her Trump negativity was calculated. Not with the election in mind but rather her own career. It seems to be working as she supposedly wants to become the new style Baba Wawa, crossing over from news to mainstream. To do that, you must be a darling of the liberals. We will see if and how it works out for her.
This. Calculated debate question, hair chop, and championing herself (and still does) as a fierce, vocal opponent of bullying all occurred around the same time frame.
Trumpsters have hated the commentator formerly known as Megyn Kendall since she asked Trump the question about ugly things he has publicly said and written about women. Once that happened, she was permanently banished to their sh*t list, and that meant her days at Fox News were probably numbered. Nevertheless, I don't think this move is going to be a big game changer. People watched Megyn Kelly because she was on Fox News. They didn't watch Fox News because Megyn Kelly was there. Fox News will be fine. They'll find another hot chick with attitude to mostly tell Fox viewers what they want to hear, and they'll tune into her as they tuned into Kelly. Her show on NBC probably won't be a flop, but she's not going to be the next Oprah either. A year from now, we won't be talking about her anymore.
Not too sure about this. Although she has definitely fallen out of my particular favor I do think she's a smart (and clever) one. Will be very interesting to see how true or untrue this quote turns out to be a year from now.
I'm not saying she'll be gone in a year. I think she'll be on NBC with so-so ratings. I just don't think she'll be an impact political player the way she has been on Fox News, which means we likey won't be talking about her anymore. Also what about "the question" made her fall out of your favor? If she hadn't raised the issue, do you think no one else would have? Surely you don't.
It was the fact that it came from one of their own that forced her out of favor. In Trump's new Republican party, you're either with him or against him. There is no room for independent thought.
Wasn't responding about "the question", if your question is directed to me. That is not my issue at all. Maybe I just tired of her in general but she seemed to reach a point where she 'knew' she was the darling and played it. Her interviews were self absorbed, you're wrong I'm right kinda questioning and don't contradict me on my show. Maybe I'm all wet because I haven't watched her in quite awhile. And then again maybe I'm so shallow it was just the hair cut. I really didn't like that.
She's only 24 In any event, I prefer they replace MKelly with someone else who at least went to law school. It helps. Perhaps they will just move Carlson up? I like his current format (at least the youtube interviews I have watched). But I dont know if it can last. I think eventually lefties will wise up, realize they are getting ground up and quit appearing. Or, maybe they never will?
One of the houses near me has a big "Shallom Y'all" in the front yard, as a sort of Holiday Season olive branch. But when I drive by, I always say "Shallow Hall." If your real first name were Hal it would be so perfect. Please say it is.
Oh look .... "2017 starts off with a BANG! as FOX NEWS executives will announce Tucker Carlson replaces the vacating Megyn Kelly at 9 PM ET, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. The dramatic move caps Carlson's rapid rise at the nation's top-rated cable channel. "Tucker has already proven to be an audience powerhouse at 7 PM, now sky is the limit!" an insider explains. In recent weeks, the Carlson show hit #1 audience and demo with a mix of explosive interviews and hard-hitting topics. Timing isn't everything in the business, it's the only thing, and Carlson arrives just as the Trump presidency begins. The broadcast wunderkind previously anchored shows on CNN, MSNBC and PBS. Developing..."
Isn't MSNBC where careers go to die? Joe Scarbarough being the exception. Maybe MSNBC is planning a hard turn right to compete with FoxNews rather than being the liberal version of FoxNews?
I'm starting to wonder if MSNBC isn't at least trying to pretend like it's shifting its approach. I was watching an ad they placed over the break, and it was basically saying "As this country has gone through so much turmoil and difficult times in this election season, it's time for us to come together. It's time for us to hold both sides accountable and be vigilant about finding the truth (or something like that)." If you didn't know it was MSNBC you could have thought it was a Fox "Fair and Balanced" spot. I sincerely doubt it was anything other than lip-service, although they may be talking as progressives and looking at pubs and dems as the "two sides" that the progressives need to keep honest. But if they were adding Greta, maybe they're actually trying to add some more conservative voices?
MSNBC would have to be much more honest to be the same version on the left as Fox is on the right. Plus they would have to move closer to the middle. Fox at least had representatives from both sides to debate issues on their programs where as MSNBC is just had people that agreed with their views. I'm not saying always but most of the time. The good news for MSNBC is they are no longer the least trusted news agency anymore as CNN lost their friggin mind in their reporting for the past year. Does Al Sharpton still have a spot on MSNBC?
