Megyn Kelly Made a Really, Really Bad Choice

The American Thinker ^ | Jan 4 2007 | By Jay Valentine

[drewh]

News this week is that Megyn Kelly is off to NBC. Waiting to hear about the bidding war that clearly did not happen. Now starts Megyn’s decline into obscurity, remembered as someone who was a hot commodity for a very short while.

Until it all became about Megyn.

What Megyn, Greta, and other passing Fox celebs do not grasp is the importance of the Fox time slot.

When Greta departed, Brit Hume did a perfectly good job with news and commentary. Now Tucker Carlson is delivering an outstanding show with positive reviews from about everyone. Before that slot, Tucker was almost unknown nationally. Now Greta will be. The slot made her, and without it, she is going to learn that her audience has little personal affection for her. The slot, however, will do fine.

I hope Fox will put someone there like Sharyl Attkisson, who is a true reporter. Maybe she is FNC material. Fox will decide.

Over the next months, we can watch NBC make a large investment in launching the new Megyn shows, only to watch initial audiences peter away. Perhaps Megyn will end up with an Ashleigh Banfield-type show nobody watches, now that the novelty of Ashleigh eyeware has long worn off.

[Elsie]

GReta is showing her more liberal side since leaving Fox.

Perhaps it's not her 'side'; but an effect of licking the Liberal hand that feeds her.

[Elsie]

So; you've noticed the advertisers during Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy too!

[Mr. K]

I just want them to post videos of her
She can read the phone book for all I care

[Godebert]

"GReta is showing her more liberal side since leaving Fox. She has even been pushing Samantha Power’s book! Rumors are she is going to MSNBC."

Greta is sort of like the Colin Powell of FOX news. She can easily fool Freepers into believing she is on their side. I've despised her ever since she all but acted as OJ's defense attorney during the OJ trial. She's a disgusting no talent leftist cretin.

[rdb3]

I just want them to post videos of her
She can read the phone book for all I care

Now see, there you go. Shame on you!

Laurie Dhue is a cutie pie, but still...

;-)

Jesus Christ: You can't impeach Him and He ain't gonna resign.

[Terry Mross]

Don’t Imus made fun of Banfield in a skit that was hilarious. Check out
“Hey, hot dog man!”

[nathanbedford]

Those assertions were not made in a vacuum. They were the result of personal observation, are voluminously backed by both hard and anecdotal evidence,

Out of the volumes of "personal observation, hard evidence and anecdotal evidence" it is remarkable but in no way surprising that you omitted to make reference to the transcript of the first debate or cited a single piece of evidence hard or the first debate an exchange which you were invited to consider but, typically, did not because it represented actual hard evidence. It is not surprising because I anticipated it. As I said in a previous reply, "I think not."

So you're the one who has walked himself out on a limb by making such an objectively false claim.

This sentence, also found in the first paragraph of your last reply, is remarkable in at least two respects: 1) you say that the claimant is "objectively false" when any reasonable person would know that "fairness " in opinion making is by definition a matter of subjective opinion; 2) it took you only the third sentence of your first paragraph to get personal. As I said in a previous reply:

It Ain't About Me.

Another sentence among all of the false claims made in the first paragraph takes the prize for irony, or rather, hypocrisy. Over the months you have used every noun and verb at your disposal to rid Free Republic of those who disagree with your version of conservatism. It is hardly surprising that after you have cleaned house as surely as Stalin cleansed the Politburo of offending opinion, that you have a "consensus."

Essentially, you're saying that everyone else in this community just shouldn't believe their lying eyes, and should take your word that Megyn Kelly was the epitome of fair reporting regarding Donald Trump. (Emphasis supplied)

I never said any such thing, and you know it. I said she was fair "relative to other journalists." There is a world of difference. But it is your habit to distort what other people say, especially when I speak, so you can attack the distortion. Attacking a straw man is a disreputable debating trick, one second only to the ad hominem of which you are inordinately fond.

To reiterate: the consensus of many thoughtful conservatives is that your ludicrous claim that Megyn Kelly was fair to Donald Trump is what is actually "simply unfair to history".

At last we come to a statement of yours that approaches the truth. Do you see the difference? Let us turn the tables and postulate: "contrary to your assertion that all thoughtful conservatives agree that your claim that Megan Kelly…" Now do you see the difference?

I'm sure you'd find more broad support for such a notion over at a place like Democratic Underground.

There you go with the ad hominem once again. Do you realize that you are, whether intentionally or not, would turn Free Republic, not substantively (that would be to the good) but forensically (which is toxic), into a mirror image of Democrat Underground?

Of course, it doesn't surprise me that you'd make such a claim, given your inherent bias against, and indeed barely veiled hatred for, Donald Trump. Doubtless, according to your warped perception, Megyn Kelly's slanted journalism with respect to Donald Trump was eminently fair.

There you go again, and again and again. How many times in this reply alone must you resort to the ad hominem? There is a larger issue at stake here than Megan Kelly, and certainly bigger than me and without a doubt bigger than your opinion of me, the larger issue is the kind of forum you want. Not Jim Robinson but you, Sargon, do you want a forum for the free exchange of conservative ideas or do you want an echo chamber for your version of some misbegotten kind of conservatism wholly insulated from dissenting opinion which might identify error and restore timeless conservative values?

The First Amendment does not decide issues on the basis of consensus as you would have it done here. Although this is not a First Amendment issue because Free Republic is a private not a government platform, the reasons for protecting free speech from the consensus apply just as cogently today to us as they did to Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Washington and all those patriots who risked their lives, fortunes and their sacred honor for a Declaration of Independence and later for a Bill of Rights. It is not surprising that the idea of free speech, immune from the clamor of the mob, was enshrined in the very first amendment.

View last night's Kelly file television program and watch her defend Trump's position and oppose Obama's. Read the transcript of the first debate, abandon your reflexive resort "consensus" and use your own powers of observation and reasoning. Above all, abandon strawman and the ad hominem and let your arguments stand or fall on their merits.

[sargon]

You can talk about ad hominems all you want. I'm saying that it's the educated and fact-based opinion of the overwhelming majority of this community that Megyn Kelly was anything but fair to Donald Trump during the campaign. The word vendetta perfectly applies in describing her nightly behavior towards Trump.

So you can babble on and on all you want, but your assertion that Megyn Kelly was objectively fair to Donald Trump is ludicrous, and that is the consensus of this community.

So once again, knock yourself out with claims to the contrary, but they are laughable, and will remain so, not just in my eyes, but in everyone's (except yours, of course)...