Posted on 11/04/2010 7:27:47 PM PDT by Gobeewan
an open letter to Dana Milbank...If you are going to criticize Megyn Kelly, please do so for the right reason. (full disclosure-I am a staunch conservative who watches only Fox News on TV-for good reason) Kelly seems to be one of the least offenders there for showing "bias". You might want to explore the question of whether or not Kelly would have her job on TV if not for her beauty and valley-girl sex appeal (a contributor to her fast-track at Fox and being assigned to cover an election despite a lack of experience?). Be careful though, you might get in trouble. The same question could be asked of most of the women on Fox and every other TV news network-not to call into doubt these women's qualifications, but to determine whether they would have their jobs no matter what their qualifications may or may not be. Apparently, this standard of appearance does not apply to men-thus, in my opinion, undermining women TV "journalists'" credibility and sending an "unattractive" message to women in general. As controversial as this might be to some despite the "visual" evidence, I believe it is a topic worthy of discussion and debate-but I heartily suggest you don a mask, chest protector and shinguards. Granted, it would take courage you may not possess, but the resulting attention (firestorm?) might be worth the slings and arrows-not that a person in your position seeks attention, of course. You also listed support/donations figures regarding Fox. I look forward to your next article that totals the support/donations given to Democrats by ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC/NPR and these networks' employees, those on local networks around the country, most newspapers, and most national magazines-not to mention Hollywood, et al, which engages in the same mind-bending of the American public done by ALL TV news networks, only on a much grander scale (is there enough room in your allotted space for that many zeroes?)
P.S. Remember the stricken, ashen and totally apoplectic look on Katie Couric's face when Bush was pronounced the winner over Gore? (or the day after Bush beat Kerry?) The stuff of legends-now THAT'S Fair & Balanced! If perkiness didn't sell, she wouldn't have a job either.
Dana Milbank is tied in so tight with the tri-sexual gals at the WarshPost he can no longer understand real people like Megyn Kelly.
Who’s Katie Couric?
Who’s Dana Milbank?
Megyn is one of the most interesting TV journalists there is on air. Fox should be very glad to have her.
heh Megyn Kelly needs nobody to defend her, she’s tough and she will beat them just by doing her job well.
Heck, she played on the boys Little League! She holds her own and proves herself.
Milbank is a committed socialist. The election results Tuesday left him with nothing of substance to say except that his agenda and his big hero in the White House are ALL THROUGH—so he decided to use his hack license to attack Fox. Ho hum. The Washington Post is just pouring the money away at this point, doomed to end up outta business. No one deserves it more than they do.
“You might want to explore the question of whether or not Kelly would have her job on TV if not for her beauty and valley-girl sex appeal”
I alluded to this on another thread and got a nasty reply. I grew up in the 60s with the bra burners. I think Kelly is intelligent and does a great job, but allows herself to be exploited by Fox by sexing her up. It contradicts what I knew the early women’s movement to be, i.e. not being exploited and treated equally. Granted, she’s marketable being young, toned, blond and smart, but what about 20-30 years from now? Will she still have a career and be marketable? Will her career be based on her brilliance or on her looks? One of the reasons I love Gretta is that she wears suits and doesn’t “slut up” for the job. This is my biggest gripe with Fox- the women seem to have to “slut up” and can’t have their laurels based on professionalism instead of sex appeal. What happens when they hit 50 or so and start looking like Joan Rivers? They’ll be thrown over in a heart beat for the next 20-30 something and will find they’ve been used. For as smart as they are, it was their sex appeal, not their smarts that was desired. The network just got a “two fer.” Sad.
You say all that as though it’s a bad thing.
“You say all that as though it’s a bad thing.”
I consider being used and exploited for looks as a woman a bad thing, while the woman thinks they’re wanted for the whole package of looks, professionalism and intelligence. I come from a famous family and it took me till I was over 40 to figure out how I’d been used and exploited. My family didn’t make a big deal out of our name, but others did. I was sheltered and naive. So what happens when Kelly loses her looks? Again, they’ll find someone younger and just as smart and she’ll realize she’s been used, unless she’s smart enough to be using them.
The odds are against Kelly as being another Dorothy Fuldheim, but maybe she’s more optimistic than I.
Fox News: Fair and Balanced and Megyn
Here's another version with some different faces:
I agree with your opinion about Kelly, but my point is only that there are no doubt many women equally or more intelligent and capable who could not get the gig due to appearance-hence she would not have her job without that. Greta? The poor woman had to go under the knife to feel better about her looks or to “keep up with the Joneses”...sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.