Deja Vu All Over Again…

The Daily Beast’s Howard Kurtz argues Megyn Kelly is destined for bigger things than 1pm…

She is clearly too big a talent to remain marooned at 1 p.m. and would like a more prominent time slot. But with Fox having stuck for years with a winning prime-time lineup of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Greta Van Susteren, it is not clear where Kelly would land.

Ohhhh…how about 3pm and 7pm? Just about everyone sees Shepard Smith as the “square peg” in FNC’s “round hole”. Granted, he brings something unique to FNC’s broadcasts, as does Kelly. But, my point is, FNC doesn’t have to give Kelly a primetime gig to elevate her further. Do I think it will happen? Only if Smith decides to leave for another network.

About these ads

47 Responses to “Deja Vu All Over Again…”

  1. I don’t see Greta and to a much lesser extent Hannity as being all that safe in their jobs. Greta has been losing the demo to LOD on a regular basis of late and her show is rarely all that interesting. Palin isn’t the attraction she once was so Greta interviewing her is just not the big news event it once was.

    Hannity is also a one trick Tea Party pony whose ratings are often now challenged by Maddow and who may have outlived his usefulness at FNC.

    If they want to keep Kelly happy I don’t see giving her a slot not in PT as enough of a promotion. Greta should be watching her back.

  2. Kelly will replace O’Reilly when he retires. She’s destined (IMO, and I’ve said this for years) to take over that prime time spot, gather the big numbers, and follow in his footsteps.

    And I think she’ll do great at it. I’m also not sure how much O’Reilly has left in the tank.

  3. Wishful Hannitty thinking on the Fritz. He has the ratings to stay as long as he and his many fans wish. That being said, if Kelly were on at 9:00, I would watch her. I don’t watch Hannity.

  4. O’Reilly still the alpha dog, and still entertains better than anyone else.

  5. First, I gotta say, this is a typical Kurtz piece. Seriously Howard, take a cold shower before you write. Every piece he writes about a woman in media is about her looks. Always. Its creepy.

    Second, I can’t image Megan will ever take over Hannity or OReilly – they are ratings gold AND she is not the fire-breathing partisan type. That would require a significant transformation away from her role delivering news. Shep’s hour seems the most likely but they seem pretty happy with Shep. There have been grumblings about him leaving so maybe that is in the works. Kelly rocked it on election night (yes, even I tuned in occasionally) and clearly she has a bright future at Fox. I would be shocked if she leaves FNC for anywhere else – she’s got a good thing going there.

    Third, my favorite little quip in the article…
    “in the industry, women have a hard time because there’s an assumption that maybe you’ve moved up for reasons other than your mind.”
    Well, yes, Megan, cuz there is a real problem with women IN MEDIA moving up for something other than their mind. Just some really simple advice, if you want to be respected for your mind, don’t do GC photo shoots posing like a stripper. Sorry ladies, you can’t have it both ways – you don’t get to whine that people think you slept your way to the top and then have pictures taken that LITERALLY SUGGEST YOU SLEPT YOUR WAY TO THE TOP. Keep your clothes on, stop with sexy poses, and do your job and surprisingly, people will respect you for your mind. It’s not rocket science. Just sayin’.
    Btw, that last little tirade I dedicate to Laura. Oh, yeah, I went there.

  6. the only time I can ever see her getting a Primetime show is if Greta ever leaves.

  7. I’d hate to see Shep go. He’s good, and he irritates all the right people. I live with two of them.

    It’s probably out there and will never happen, but Megyn co-hosting with Sean would be strange. He desperately needs someone to temper his innate annoyingness. Oddly enough, Colmes used to serve that purpose. Separately, they’re unbearable. OTOH, that would ruin her career, so never mind.

  8. Nothing wrong with doing a GQ shoot to show you are glamorous as well as smart. Women should be free to not give up one to have the other I say. Showing you “have it all” is why I often mow the yard shirtless.

  9. Do you suppose Ed threatened to torch the studio again?

  10. I love when men say “there’s nothing wrong with..” (not the least bit self-serving, I’m sure). Yeah, there’s nothing wrong with having a bunch of photos for men to perv over, while yammering about being “taken seriously”. Sorta like “low-cut dress, but look me in the eye!” on a (ahem) larger scale.

  11. A women doesn’t have to present herself as Jane Hathaway to be taken seriously.

  12. Yes, dear. Those are our options.

  13. Men encouraging women to take their clothes off because it’s good for their “career”. That just about says it all. Try that cold shower.

  14. *sigh*

    If there’s something women dislike more than smart and successful other women, who happen to be beautiful and confident enough to show it… then I’m sure it hasn’t been found yet.

  15. bubble, bubble, bubble…

  16. Thanks for the insult, Blue. God knows I’ve never expressed an honest opinion around here. And never mind the fact that I’m coming around to seeing Megyn replace Greta, since Greta hasn’t brought much to the table, lately.

  17. Wow, the stupid is thick here today. Nobody said anything about resenting successful, attractive women. The point is obvious: Every article about Megyn Kelly mentions her looks (it’s the first thing Brit Hume brings up), then has the requisite claim from her that in some ways it’s a detriment. Which is disingenuous “don’t hate me for being beautiful” BS.

  18. It’s not specifically at you, Laura.

    But I remember all the discussions from here and elsewhere when Kelly did that photo shoot. I also see the kind of vitriol directed at other attractive FOX women, even from people who agree with them.

    Not to over generalize, but I think a lot of women see the few “have it alls” as very annoying I think men do it too, to a degree (there was a whole episode of South Park along those lines this season)… but it certainly does seem harder for attractive and smart women, to win over other women. Just my opinion. No offense intended.

  19. Blue, I have no idea what you’re going on about. Your “opinion” about smart, attractive women having a harder time winning over other women has nothing to do with the article, or the responses to it here. You think Megyn is the bee’s knees – which is fine – but you reacted to criticism of her by attacking the women in this thread. “Just my opinion. No offense intended.” does not cover it.

  20. Oh geez, imnotblue, so typical. There are plenty of smart, successful, beautiful women in the world who never take their clothes off for a magazine spread. Is it really hard for you to grasp that smart and sexy and successful are three distinct, unrelated attributes? Your retort is a tired, out-dated retread. Oh, btw, I found it… what we dislike more are guys who insist on witless brain-dead girls in little dresses doling out the news and wonder why other women don’t enjoy it as much as they do.

    The most thoughtless part of larry’s “there is nothing wrong with” remark is that it never occurs to men that women would actually like to watch the news without feeling like we just walked into a Hooters bar. Personally, I would like to see Rob Marciano read me the news shirtless but somehow I don’t think my husband or any of you mooks would enjoy it as much as I would.

    Truth is, you guys defending Megan Kelly don’t really respect her either. You just like how she looks and you call her smart to keep from sounding like a total misogynist pig. There is nothing in that GQ spread that suggests she is smart and anyone who pretends otherwise is reaching for a justification. You don’t pose like that to say you are smart. How dumb do you have to be to have that explained to you?

    I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of Megyn complaining about how people assume women get ahead by means other than their minds all the while posing for a photo shoot that makes her look like a streetwalker. If it looks like a wh0re and acts like a wh0re, can you be shocked when people think you are a wh0re? You can be smart AND a wh0re!! ;)

  21. I’ll take smart and good looking over smart and ughly. Anyone saying they won’t is a liar.

  22. and now, here’s the news:

  23. Meanwhile, some of us will comment intelligently on a different thread. Y’all can stay here and insult people.

  24. Joe, I was responding to the comments on Kelly’s GQ shoot and pictures. It’s an old topic, frequently discussed, and one for which I have an existing opinion. Does that cover it?

    @ Elle
    Answer me this, if Kelly is smart, successful, and beautiful… why should you, I, or anyone else care what she does or doesn’t do in a photo shoot? If that type of thing doesn’t do it for you, don’t look at the pictures. Clearly you think there is a “right” and a “wrong” choice to be made in this area. Why do you or other women get to impose that view upon Ms. Kelly? It was her choice to be made… and it’s my fault for respecting that choice?! Puh-lease.

    Essentially much of your argument boils down to the old, “she was asking for it,” routine. She dresses, acts, looks, a certain way… so therefore she’s asking for it. No thank you… I’m not into that line of repressive and insulting thinking.

    Oh, and one more thing… where do you get off whining about men thinking they “know everything” about women, and then give the “here’s what men actually think” lecture? I’m not sure which it’s more, sexist, hypocritical, or just stupid. But then again, I’m not sure I care.

  25. Blue, Elle’s point is obvious. Megyn does a highly sexual photo shoot, then complains in an interview about being perceived as having moved up the ladder based on her sexuality. If you’re going to do the “tiny dress and stilettos” shoot, shut up about “perception”.

  26. Megyn did that GQ shoot what, two years ago and you people still are talking ablout it? Sounds like a pretty smart move to me.

  27. That GQ shoot was ridiculous. It was degrading to women, and made Megyn and Fox News look like morons. The co-anchor of Election Night coverage has what amounts to a Maxim spread in her Google results, and it was only a couple years ago.

  28. Thank Joeremi, well said.

    First, imnotblue, don’t ever, EVER accuse me of suggesting that any woman is “asking for it” because that implies I would condone an act of violence. Really, don’t ever go there.

    Second, I have just as much a right to render an opinion on her photo shoot as you do. You liked it – no surprise. I didn’t. MK doesn’t need my permission or acceptance. I just gave an opinion, like you. Of course it is her choice, I never disputed that. I simply think she chose poorly.

  29. If they didn’t suck the life out of his delivery, seeing Shepard on CNN would definitely bring something powerful to that network.

    On topic. Kelly in primetime in place of Greta would make for an interesting twist, and I think she’s be able to be more comfortable in that hour then Greta seems to be most times I tune in. Everything would suddenly be dramatic, so I suppose it’d be a good Grace competitor, although the hours would be different.

  30. Amazing how Blue perpetually responds to people and thoughts that he doesn’t care about. With thousands of words.

  31. IcaThe GQ shoot did nothing to burnish Kelly’s credentials on the air. I don’t think anyone could argue otherwise. But it is typical behavior for FNC which has a long and distinguished track record of promoting anything but its talents’ qualifications to be on the air. Except when a big straight news cycle hits like last week’s election. Then suddenly all those beauty secret, fashion discussion, this is my hometown…wasn’t it cute? articles go POOF!….replaced by articles about why the talent is anchoring such and such very important news cycle. I’d dearly love to see if FNC had the stones to do the GQ spread a wwek befor a debate or election. I’m betting they don’t.

  32. Sounds like jealous talk coming from the chess club and band camp.

  33. Larry, you haven’t read a single word anyone has said about this.

  34. Not sure Larry can read. I think he just likes to look at the purdy pictures… #CheapShot

  35. Sure, somebody thinks you can’t be taken seriously as class president if you show off as a cheerleader and somebody else said if you dress like a wh*re expect to be treated like one and CAPS said something about vets and Faux garbage that made about as much sense while being equally judgmental. I amazed by the bunch of you.

  36. I read GQ for the literary value, Spud.

  37. @Joe (etc.)
    Isn’t there a difference between looking sexy, being in a sexy photo shoot… and having people assume you slept your way to the top? How does having a sexy appearance, equate to being a power s!u+? I don’t think that’s fair… and that’s my point.

    @Elle
    RE Point 1: But that’s in the same vein as what you’re arguing. That because of her attire in that photo shoot, it’s acceptable to think of her as someone who seduced people to get what she wanted. That’s very degrading, isn’t it?

    RE Point 2: Your “no surprise” comment speaks volumes. You apparently believe you know what I, or other men, are thinking… yet get indigent when we believe we know what women are thinking. How is that fair? I approved of the photo shoot because it was her choice, and I saw a sexy and confident woman. Frankly, if I’m looking for a little T&A, the news isn’t my first choice of outlets.

    @Laura
    My ability to type quickly, and verbose-osity (© INB) doesn’t mean I care.

    Or something.

    I’m responding to the topic. However, it doesn’t mean it’s a topic that would have picked to talk about.

    Besides, these days I spend more time listening to FNC, than watching it. Did you know there are free radio apps you can download for your phone, that have FNC radio (as well as other radio stations?) Awesome! But ogling Megyn on the radio is difficult.

  38. Uh huh. Funny, but I didn’t see any responses to Spud. At this moment, his is the only opinion of interest. Particularly since he’s male, and thus can’t have his motives derided.
    I do love the smell of rationalizations in the morning.

  39. Spud ain’t that interesting. Hangs too much with fish.

  40. @Joe (etc.)
    Isn’t there a difference between looking sexy, being in a sexy photo shoot… and having people assume you slept your way to the top? How does having a sexy appearance, equate to being a power s!u+? I don’t think that’s fair… and that’s my point.

    Your point ignores my point. It’s disingenuous to do a Maxim-level photo shoot and a cheesy interview to go with it, then in another interview allude to “being sexy” being an issue you have to “deal with” in your career. You can bend over the chair with stilettos in the air, or you can complain about female objectification in the news business, but you can’t do both.

  41. You mean this point:

    The GQ shoot did nothing to burnish Kelly’s credentials on the air. I don’t think anyone could argue otherwise.

    I agree. But Spud also didn’t say it did anything to hurt those credentials, which is what I believe a lot of folks are saying. On that, I disagree.

  42. If it did hurt, it shouldn’t have, as prudes need to get a life.

  43. Joe, I think we’re talking about two different things.

    First off, there’s the idea that she used her body and looks to help her career, in less than ethical ways. I think that’s pure speculation, and insulting.

    Secondly, there’s the idea that you can’t be sexy (and show it), and be smart at the same time. What I think you’re saying is, “If she wants to do a shoot like that, fine… but don’t expect me to take you seriously from that point on.” I think that’s also insulting.

    I don’t get why she can’t be sexy, have a sexy photo shoot, and still be seen as a “thinker.” It’s like you guys have an “either/or” mentality. Either she’s sexy and shows it, but isn’t smart… or she’s sexy and keeps it under wraps, and then can be taken seriously as a journalist. And I continue to disagree.

  44. “I can’t take shirtless FBI agents seriously”

    Eric Cantor

  45. - “If she wants to do a shoot like that, fine… but don’t expect me to take you seriously from that point on.” –

    Dude, I’ve said it several times now. My complaint is that she pours on the sexuality, then does interviews in which she alludes to it potentially being a problem for her career. I couldn’t make it any clearer, and anyone trying to find a hidden meaning in my comments is looking for something that isn’t there.

  46. No, it’s clear. Joe is intimidated by pretty girls.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 230 other followers

%d bloggers like this: