Megyn Kelley first loses conservatives, now is losing liberals
Long knives are unsheathed for Megyn Kelly from both sides of the political spectrum. When she took on then-candidate Trump, she began to lose conservatives, and sealed the deal with her sexual harassment accusations that accompanied her departure from Fox for the liberal pastures of Comcast’s NBC.
Now, in the words of Scott Greer, deputy editor of the Daily Caller, “Liberals no longer want Megyn Kelly.” The essay is insightful, covering her behavior and its consequences, up to and including the reaction to her interview with Alex Jones. Read the whole thing if you want to follow the continuing trajectory of Megyn Kelly's career. The conclusion:
It seems that Kelly was only liked because she served as a dividing force at Fox. Journalists only liked her when she helped bring down Roger Ailes, made other network stars uncomfortable and, of course, routinely attacked the Republican nominee for president.
As a primetime anchor for Fox News, those traits made her different. At NBC, everyone is a liberal, and what differentiates Kelly from her peers is her past record of right-wing commentary. There are plenty of other female journalists who will challenge Trump, and none of them once emphatically declared Santa Claus is white.
That’s why there were already prominent rumblings about Kelly’s move and it displacing more reliably left-wing and non-white journalists.
Worst for Kelly, she’s probably not bringing many of her Fox News fans to her NBC gig. The only people who vividly remember her Trump opposition are Trump supporters, and they haven’t forgiven her.
Note that taboo against Alex Jones is being enforced. He has been decreed as beyond the pale, and Kelly is now being punished for violating that taboo.
A friend wrote me about this:
I am no fan of Megyn Kelly. And, I know next to nothing about Alex Jones. But, for assorted media types to criticize her for interviewing a fairly influential individual who, to the best of my knowledge, is not guilty of genocide or torture seems a bit hypocritical to me. After all, was there any criticism when Dan Rather interviewed Saddam Hussein? Or, when an NBC correspondent interviewed Bashar Al Assad? Or, when Barbara Walters interviewed Fidel Castro?
I don’t recall anyone writing that Dan Rather “normalized” Saddam?
Good point, but of course not: the object of taboos is to punish undesirable thoughts and behavior. Alex Jones is a threat to the MSM, while tyrants only oppress their own people, and represent a “get” in prestige terms. Undesirability is a subjective concept, shaped by self-interest.