Putin: “Our ambassador met with someone. And what does an ambassador do? It’s his job, he gets paid for it. He has to have meetings, discuss current affairs, negotiate. What else is he supposed to do? Visit all sorts of establishments? For visiting which he will later be kicked out of work?
No, it’s his job…and he’s accused of having met someone? Are you completely out of your mind? There’s nothing concrete, just zero, zero, nothing at all! Simply surprising. It’s simply some kind of hysteria and just can’t stop.
Do you need to be given some pill? Does anyone have a pill? Give them a pill. Though, honestly it’s amazing.” """
Vladimir Putin tells 'hysterical' Megyn Kelly to 'take a pill' as he ridicules suggested links with Donald Trump. pic.twitter.com/1FH1Xyb8Tg
— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) June 5, 2017
The issue is the claim is unfounded and there is literally no evidence of any wrong doing whatsoever. It would be like Sean Hannity accusing Obama of drowning puppies in a burlap sack and every other media outlet question him at every turn about the fabricated claim.
The Rock
sleepyhunter's Link
Any journalist that would take this story at this point should be suspect in anyone's eyes. If something more materializes, then let's pick it up. However, this was just Kelly being a typical journalist at this point. Fighting at the slop filed table of Trump hater's. That's it. Until something new comes out that could actually be absorbed as evidence, anyone singing this crap is an agenda driven puppet. Something Kelly used to be pretty good at avoiding. But, like all who have gotten tangled in the "Ruin Rump Web", she failed in doing so. And, has joined the lowly ranks of the main stream media slobs. Journalist my foot.
Jerimiah: You understand what he's sayin'?
Bear Claw Chris Lapp: Paints-His-Shirt speaks English, he just does this to aggravate me.
Talk about Infatuation, must be the tramp photo's she posted for in smut magazines or talking about her husbands junk and other sexual what not on the radio.
Yes it does, the top headline of your link states something about a federal employee being busted for leaking top-secret NSA docs.
So you are now claiming this is not true and more of your so called fake news.
Talk about being a dishonest shill who will post pontificating dishonest claptrap...
slade's Link
Top stories
Federal worker busted for leaking top-secret NSA docs on Russian hacking New York Post · 9 hours ago
Contractor charged with leaking classified NSA info on Russian hacking CNN · 2 hours ago
NSA contractor accused of leaking top secret report on Russian hacking efforts Fox News · 5 hours ago
More for charged Monday with leaking a top secret NSA report Contractor charged with leaking classified NSA info on Russian ... www.cnn.com/2017/06/05/politics/federal-contractor-leak-prosecution/index.html
3 hours ago - The Justice Department announced charges Monday against a federal contractor with Top Secret security ... Contractor charged with leaking classified NSA info on Russian hacking .... Reports: Kushner under FBI scrutiny ... Federal worker busted for leaking top-secret NSA docs on Russian ... nypost.com/2017/06/.../top-secret-nsa-doc-details-russian-election-hacking-effort-rep...
9 hours ago - A 25-year-old Federal contractor was charged Monday with leaking a top secret NSA report — detailing how Russian military hackers targeted US voting systems just days before the election. The highly classified intelligence document, published Monday by The Intercept, describes ... Woman Charged With Leaking Top-Secret NSA Doc | MSNBC www.msnbc.com/.../woman-charged-with-leaking-top-secret-nsa-doc-960699459826
9 hours ago - NBC's Pete Williams reports that the FBI has arrested a 25-year-old federal contractor for allegedly leaking a document to The Intercept last ... NSA contractor accused of leaking top secret report on Russian ... www.foxnews.com/.../nsa-contractor-accused-leaking-top-secret-report-on-russian-hacki...
6 hours ago - NSA contractor accused of leaking top secret report on Russian hacking efforts ... and mailing it to a news outlet, the Justice Department said Monday. ... that Winner was being charged in connection with the Intercept's report. Federal Contractor Charged With Leaking Classified NSA Report After ... ktla.com/.../federal-contractor-charged-with-leaking-classified-nsa-report-after-info-o...
7 hours ago - The Justice Department announced charges Monday against a federal contractor with Top Secret security clearance after she allegedly leaked ... Contractor charged for allegedly leaking NSA document on Russia ... www.slate.com/.../contractor_charged_for_allegedly_leaking_nsa_document_on_russ...
6 hours ago - Reality Leigh Winner is charged with leaking classified information to the Intercept. ... Shortly after the Intercept published a story Monday afternoon—based on a leaked internal National Security Agency report—that Russian ... arrested Reality Leigh Winner, a contractor with top-secret security clearance at ... Contractor charged with leaking classified NSA report on Russian ... www.chicagotribune.com/news/.../ct-russia-hacking-election-20170605-story.html
5 hours ago - The classified National Security Agency report, which was ... Monday it had charged a government contractor in Georgia with leaking a classified report containing "Top Secret level" information to an online news organization. Feds Arrest NSA Contractor in Leak of Top Secret Russia Document ... www.nbcnews.com/.../feds-arrest-nsa-contractor-leak-top-secret-russia-document-n76...
2 hours ago - Feds Arrest NSA Contractor in Leak of Top Secret Russia Document ... District of Georgia charging Reality Leigh Winner, 25, a federal contractor, ... just six individuals who had viewed the intelligence reporting since the U.S. ... Reality Leigh Winner charged with leaking classified materials ... www.businessinsider.com/reality-leigh-winner-classified-nsa-russia-hacking-fbi-2017-6
8 hours ago - The FBI thinks it's found the person who leaked top secret intelligence about Russia ... intelligence to a news outlet, the Justice Department said Monday. ... SEE ALSO: Top-secret NSA report: Russian hackers tried to breach ...
The Russia crap is a tired, desperate argument. Trump fights the Republicans and the media every day and has still been a success. I would say he fights the Dems but in reality they have no power to fight him.
I wonder if the Israeli media covered the interference in their most recent election by Barack Obama at even a fraction of the rate that our media has covered this fake Russian narrative?
Yet, this is "fake news", and not worthy of asking Putin about? Too funny.
Matt
‘Are you on Twitter?’ Megyn Kelly asks world’s 2nd-most followed leader Modi
It all started after Modi, a long-time Twitter user with over 15,000 posts and 30.3 million followers, told Kelly that he saw a tweet that she posted with a photo of her standing with an umbrella in a St. Petersburg street. Kelly, seemingly in disbelief, replied: “Oh really, did you? Are you on Twitter?”
I have better things to do, than to revel in it with you.
Small critical thinking malfunction. Not fake news. Simple edit will fix.
Of course the Russians attempted to influence our election. My bet is they have attempted to influence every election in my lifetime. How many elections has the US government tried to influence over the years? The narrative of Russian influence has been driven to the point that now the media uses the word hack as in the Russians changed votes or manipulated the vote count. There is ZERO indication that this happened but the average Democrat actually believes this because it is what they have been told.
The leaked NSA document states:
"Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate actors … executed cyber espionage operations against a named U.S. company in August 2016, evidently to obtain information on elections-related software and hardware solutions. … The actors likely used data obtained from that operation to … launch a voter registration-themed spear-phishing campaign targeting U.S. local government organizations."
This also jives with the official statement by the FBI, CIA, and NSA officials, provided to Congress in early May.
It's yet to be determined if the Russian's efforts had any impact on election results, but there's little doubt that they tried. That, in itself, is reason for investigation, and is certainly news worthy, IMO.
Matt
However, others here seem to get confused over the simplest things.
:^)
Says a lot when folks applaud an evil murderous scum like Putin...... And crank on a reporter for asking relevant questions. There is not a reporter on EARTH who would not have asked the very same questions. But she's obviously a Trump hater and that cannot be tolerated....... good grief..... she's just another reporter, they all think they are stars....
I don't see much infatuation.... but a good deal of obsession.....
I'm pretty sure if you asked him how many people he murdered last week the answer would be just as transparent as asking him if he meddled in our election. I'm just curious if Megyn thought he would actually answer anything honestly? His favorite color? My bet is red.
God bless, Steve
She has the gig..... I think if she just sat there and said nothing they'd likely not send her a paycheck this month....... =D
Like your first post, hypercritical much their KBS.
We have a winner......even with the handicap of critical thinking........;0)
I fully understand the point he was making, I just don't find him humorous. I don't like him, I think he's a dishonest person with few morals and little integrity. As such, I'll freely admit I have a very difficult time laughing at anything he says.
I don't watch Megyn Kelly nor follow her life, so I have no idea if she's comparable to Putin.
Kevin,
Fair enough. I don't watch NBC News so I can't even begin to comment on them.
BowSniper's Link
“President Trump, by praising and citing him, appearing on his show, and giving him White House press credentials, has helped elevate Jones, to the alarm of many. Our goal in sitting down with him was to shine a light - as journalists are supposed to do - on this influential figure, and yes - to discuss the considerable falsehoods he has promoted with near impunity.”
They know she's a despicable attention/rating seeking anti-Trump news tramp who cares nothing bout the emotional harm she will bring to the Sandy Hook victims and their families.
Coming on only the third episode of her new NBC newsmagazine, “Sunday Night With Megyn Kelly,” the segment has become, as the technical television term goes, a hot mess. """
According to AdWeek, a rerun on CBS’ 60 Minutes not only beat Megyn Kelly’s show, “Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly” on NBC, but garnered more than twice the total viewers.
About 3.6 million viewers watched Kelly’s show while more than 7.9 million viewers watched her head-to-head competitor, a rerun on 60 Minutes. The viewership also represents a drop of 42 percent from a week earlier, the debut episode with Vladimir Putin, the president of the Russian Federation.
Adweek also reported that her A25-54 news demo viewership also dropped 33 percent from last week, from a 1.2 rating to a 0.8 rating. The 60 Minutes rerun received a rating of 1.1.
Kelly has been absolutely pummeled in the media and on social media over her interview with conspiracy theory advocate Alex Jones, which is scheduled to run on Sunday. Critics say she is providing an underserving platform for an unsavory media figure that misleads his audience """
"""No laughing matter: Megyn Kelly loses almost half her audience in second week of NBC show and is beaten by a REPEAT of America's Funniest Home """
Because Kelly, and apparently NBC, high off ratings from her event-less Vladimir Putin interview last week, lost all news judgment.
This isn’t Walters with the Menendez brothers or Anwar Sadat. It’s a former Fox News host, with a fake news peddler who is using the murder of children to make a pro-gun argument.
It’s a former Fox News host, with a fake news peddler who is using the murder of children to make a pro-gun argument.
It’s a former Fox News host, with a fake news peddler who is using the murder of children to make a pro-gun argument.
In short, KPC has picked up his toys and gone home.
Unfortunately calling me spade only confirms your character.... and the other thing your post does is prove how your pontificating critical thought theorem is malarkey.
The majority of the posted quotes came from left leaning sites......
Perfect description of yourself KPC. Good job.
Why are the Trumpettes upset???
Trump felt it was a "Great Honor" To Be Endorsed By Sandy Hook Truthers.
He is a 9/11 Truther himself...
Liberals, Trumpettes, and the MSM alike have gone so far as to urge NBC to kill the interview. Hell, even Jones wants it killed. Clue for those who don't have one: If the left and the right are both equally angry, that means she’s done her job.....
""If the left and the right are both equally angry, that means she’s done her job.....""
Well, which is it pontificater....
I disagree Spike. Alex Jones insisted the interview be canceled, which proves his critical thinking is superior to KPC's. Poor sense of morality is KPC's critical thinking strongpoint.
Yes there is, it's on your end KPC. Exercising an opinion about your poor behavior during this thread is not name calling. If your not smart enough to handle the truth about yourself, it's not my problem. It's yours. Can't have it both ways.
sleepyhunter's Link
Another KPC critical thinking fail. Good grief. you're delusional.
slade's Link
Spin Away pontificator...
Glad to hear you laughed. You were crying earlier. Excellent tantrum KPC. I got to admitt you throw a hissy fit better than my 3 yr old granddaughter.
The network’s vaunted new hire has whiffed her first opportunities to shine. Did NBC make a $17.5m mistake?
It’s still months before Megyn Kelly’s new NBC daytime show is set to premiere, but it already feels like the former Fox News anchor has overstayed her welcome. Only three weeks into her Sunday-night newsmagazine show — a “Dateline” style piece, structured around her interviews with high-profile “gets” — Kelly’s star is dimmer than ever. It’s a far cry from where she was just a year ago.
2016 was a banner year for Kelly: After a wave of flattering media coverage positioned her as one of the few remaining sensible voices within the Republican party, she led round-the-clock election coverage for Fox News — anchoring one of its highest-rated programs, “The Kelly File,” and shoring up the network’s credibility on women’s issues as it reported on, and sometimes sparred with, then-candidate Donald Trump. If Bill O’Reilly was the face of the network, Kelly — a photogenic former lawyer — was the face of the future. It was Kelly’s complaints that finally ended Roger Ailes’ reign of sexual harassment at the network; an indication of changing times, a changing company, and Kelly’s worth to the network.
Then in January, Kelly left Fox News, and since then whatever high-wattage star power she had has waned considerably. This month she’s been hosting “Sunday Night With Megyn Kelly,” an opportunity for theoretically harder-hitting coverage than what she’ll do in the fall when she takes over the network’s 9 a.m. timeslot.
By all measures, her “Sunday Night” effort been a disaster: Her interviews have been either ridiculed or loathed by the rest of the press, and the ratings reflect a distinct lack of interest. To be sure, newsmagazines around one anchor have a high failure rate, even for respected names like Bryant Gumbel, Connie Chung, and Jane Pauley. But Kelly’s problems go beyond ratings. Her June 18 episode, an interview with InfoWars’ Alex Jones, began as a problematic decision and snowballed into a PR nightmare. Kelly couldn’t handle either the interview or its fallout.
Ratings: Megyn Kelly’s Much-Hyped Alex Jones Interview Is a Bust
Even before all of this, there were plenty of reasons to be skeptical of Kelly’s upcoming foray in the 9 a.m. timeslot. Daytime television is a notoriously difficult nut to crack — dozens of shows, built around former news anchors and other personalities, have failed to succeed, even when they are helmed by otherwise well-liked personalities. Kelly has never emphasized intimacy or likability in her on-camera persona. Her style is legalistic and cool, with a brass-tacks elegance that can, at best, appear regal.
Compare this to Kelly’s fiercest competitor in the 9 a.m. timeslot: Kelly Ripa, a brash, bubbly personality who manages to be both inclusive and distinctive at the same time. Daytime TV is such an intimate and alchemical landscape that audiences’ most beloved anchors take on a kind of mythical quality — Oprah, Ellen, Katie — who are gossiped about and scrutinized as if they were members of a far-flung family. Ripa, a master of the form, was already, in all likelihood, going to eat Kelly for lunch (or is it breakfast?). Now that Kelly’s reputation on the rocks — and that Ripa has a new telegenic cohost in Ryan Seacrest — it’s hard to imagine Kelly making a dent in Ripa’s audience.
On top of all of this there’s the fact that Kelly has a history of cringeworthy statements about black people — and is about to debut in a timeslot that happens to draw a large African-American female audience. According to Nielsen data for the 2015-16 season, African-American women comprised 23.1% of the total TV audience in the (nearly synchronous) 7 a.m.- 3 p.m. time frame, making them the largest component of the daytime viewership base, ahead of white (16.3%), Hispanic (12.6%) and Asian (7.6%) women.
Given all of this, NBC’s logic in hiring Kelly — for an annual salary, according to industry sources, of $17.5 million — was already murky. Now, “Sunday Night” has called into question Kelly’s capacity to do her job appropriately. The entire rigmarole with Alex Jones was a series of unforced errors: Amateur decision-making, lightweight investigation, and vaguely defined motives. She has floundered in interviews on-camera and made to look either dishonest or unprofessional off-camera. And her essential sense of newsworthiness is oddly awry; after all of the hullabaloo defending her interview of Jones, she couldn’t manage to get the segment to coalesce around a news peg.
So what is Megyn Kelly good at? "" Posing as a tramp for Men magazines.....
I disagree. What a ridiculous statement. Complete speculation. Ivanka and Melania Trump have class that only MK could dream about. Critical thinking fail.
Good luck with that. I'll suggest you never try that in front of a district court judge, as they often have no sense of humor on these things.
I don't have a problem with a journalist asking hard questions about a controversial subject. I just hate the false pretense, as if she ever really intended this to be about a personal side of him. Outright lies. How much of the interview was about his custody battle? How much about Trump?
Why shoe horn a Trump angle into an Alex Jones 'the man behind the mic' type story? Why do you keep evading this obvious question? The amount of Trump coverage was almost a third of the piece. MK is making clear efforts here to tie controversy and negativity, the ugliness of denying a school shooting, to Trump. Why would your gal do that? Ratings or a personal axe to grind? How does an "honest individual" answer that one, KPC??
And that can't be answered in a vaccuum. Her history with Trump, the election results, her gender, and her recent career choices all factor into her decisions.
I would posit that this interview was never really about hard questions and AJ. It was about finding a controversial conservative, showing him as Negative and crazy, and tying it back to Trump. Otherwise why take that much time and effort! Again, I am saying THAT part is what shows MK's true colors. Not who she interviews or how tough the questions... it's how she assembles it to turn it back against Trump for her own motives.
How much of her Putin interview did she try to tie back to Trump. Are you not seeing a pattern?!?
NBC News executives were reportedly already “freaking out” over the “ratings disaster” that is Kelly even before Kelly’s controversial interview with Alex Jones turned out to be her lowest-ratest show to date despite getting the most media buzz. A television executive even told CNN over the weekend that NBC’s “fundamental mistake” was thinking that Kelly was actually a “superstar.” """
Unknown KPC, you keep coming back to prove you haven't hit rock bottom yet.
I would posit that this interview was never really about hard questions and AJ. It was about finding a controversial conservative, showing him as Negative and crazy, and tying it back to Trump. Otherwise why take that much time and effort! Again, I am saying THAT part is what shows MK's true colors. Not who she interviews or how tough the questions... it's how she assembles it to turn it back against Trump for her own motives.
How much of her Putin interview did she try to tie back to Trump. Are you not seeing a pattern?!?
Best post on the whole thread. I started to point this out to Kevin earlier. But, truth is he has some pretty valid arguments against some of you guys and, was pretty busy pointing that out. However, no one can deny she is on a witch hunt. She has been on a witch hunt. And, she is going to go the way that everyone else that has under taken the Trump witch hunt. And, it won't be Trump that does it. It'll be the people that fail her.
If there was something of substance behind her purpose except her own agenda, it would be different. People would push for it. Instead, people are tired of all agenda driven journalism. Proof of this is the reality It is proving to be non-beneficial to anyone who is trying to conjure something from nothing to discredit Trump.
Never have I seen a guy that stumbles so much politically come out on top. And, I like it. Everyone does. They expect it. But, they know in the end he is going to come out vindicated. This is a guy's guy. A fella trying his best in an unfamiliar role. People recognize that. They see the effort. Which is why he gets the free rein to keep on doing it and, still be the man with the Republics support.
I believe in getting what you give. I love it. I love seeing people strangle themselves on Trump's style. I love the fact he is a man of substance. I love the fact that MK is letting her ego ruin her. Not because it is Megan Kelly but, because she has exposed what she is. I love this President at this point. I laughed so hard last night at his Iowa Press conference. He knows how to rub it in. How to keep digging at it to get the ridiculous reactions he is getting. He isn't stupid. And, before it is over MK will be another victim of her own Agenda. Defamed by the Trump Train trying to do nothing more than what he promised the people he would do. The republic will see it done.
It is abundantly clear to me that there is a pre-formed conclusion where Megyn Kelly is concerned and an ocean of contrary evidence isn't going to sway some people one iota from that point. It's tantamount to arguing against the sun rising in the east; it's an inevitable fail.
Not a single critic to the best of my knowledge has ever made a compelling case of failure as a representative journalist in technique or content on the part of Megyn Kelly; not even a sniff of one. A tidal wave of anecdotes is not data; it is a tidal wave of anecdotes that make for a nice campfire story and offer precious little in constructive analysis/debate of the subject matter.
Kevin,
It's time to stop chasing phantom rabbits down phantom rabbit holes; you're caught in the same conundrum people fell into when they criticized Obama on performance and then wasted all kinds of time defending themselves against charges of racism. Deflection is the first refuge of those bereft of a solid argument; when you've posted examples of Megyn Kelly employing the same hard line questioning with other interview subjects you've done your part of the fact-checking; frankly I'm fed up with the histrionic hand-wringing and sophomoric insults and would prefer that either facts start getting put up that can be discussed contrary to Kevin's position or this thread makes like a ball in tall grass and gets lost.
KPC, it is due to what I said earlier in the thread. And the fact that these men have had to swallow 8 years of lies and dishonesty. Take it on the chin. They are all in for the promise and reality of a better situation. They are simply giving MK what she tried to give Trump. Only difference is their man is on top.
God Bless men
Remember that MK's first big debate question to Trump (when she broke out those obnoxious mega eye lashes) was a gotcha question about all his prior insults to women, more feminist than journalist . Trump came back with a hysterical comment about it being just Rosie O'Donnell. And then Trump went on to defeat Hillary and both wound Kelly's ego and incite her feminist rage. To believe that something else is driving her behavior, is unbelievable.
God bless, Steve
Megyn Kelly is paid to do a couple things: a) Look good, at least in the minds of grumpy old men who actually watch news television. b) Elicit responses that create dramatic effect. By technical definition she would probably have to be considered a journalist, but it depends on what one considers news. I have no idea how much investigation and writeup she does, but she certainly meets the distribution category. By the same token, we would probably have to consider the folks at E! news journalists as well.
Another day, another terrible review for NBC News talent Megyn Kelly in the establishment media.
The Boston Globe’s television critic Matthew Gilbert ripped Kelly for lacking both the charisma and acumen to be successful at NBC News.
After watching the first three poorly-rated episodes of Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly, he notes that charisma is a “relatively hard quality to define” and points out that “Merriam-Webster actually resorts to the supernatural in its first definition of the word: ‘A personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure.’”
“All I know is that I don’t find Megyn Kelly charismatic. She has no ‘personal magic,’” Gilbert writes, adding that Kelly “is lacking in that mysterious quality that engenders curiosity, excitement, and?trust in a TV viewer.”
According to Gilbert, “there’s something stubbornly shallow about her presence, so that when she sits down with an international dodge artist like Vladimir Putin, she seems way out of her league.”
Kelly, according to Gilbert, “came off like a poseur” in her widely-criticized interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin by just “going through the motions of seriousness” and wound up looking “two-faced” after her disastrous interview with Alex Jones aired. After HuffPost obtained unedited footage of Kelly’s interview with Putin in which a “nervous” Kelly lobbed him “softballs,” Kelly was resoundingly mocked. And Gilbert notes that Putin “brushed her and her questions off like they were so much dandruff.”
Gilbert also says viewers can “feel the strain” as Kelly desperately tries to position herself as a serious investigative reporter.
He thinks “NBC may have goofed” and made a “giant miscalculation” when it decided to give Kelly nearly $20 million a year because she “may not have the magnetism and acumen to rise to the occasion.”
Gilbert is hardly alone in his sharp criticism of Kelly.
A television executive told CNN that NBC’s “fundamental mistake” was thinking that Kelly was a “superstar.” Variety noted that Kelly’s star is “dimmer than ever” as she has alienated everybody.
“On NBC, Kelly is didactic without being trustworthy; patronizing without being impressive. Her voiceover suggests doom without really proving it; there’s a scare-mongering side to her reportage,” Variety pointed out. “And, most importantly: She’s alienated everyone.”
Even before Kelly’s interview with Jones, NBC executives were reportedly already “freaking out” over the “ratings disaster” that has been Kelly. And after Kelly’s controversial interview with Jones again failed to beat reruns of 60 Minutes and America’s Funniest Home Videos and became Kelly’s lowest-rated program to date despite being the most hyped, a New York radio host said his sources at NBC News revealed that the network was looking to unload Kelly’s contract and may even ask Fox News to consider taking Kelly back.
But a high-ranking Fox News official told Breitbart News that Kelly “would not be welcomed back” at the network.
Seems to be pretty common around here.
Matt
NBC’s Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly got walloped by a fresh episode of 60 Minutes and lost yet again to a rerun of America’s Funniest Home Videos. In fact, as Variety pointed out, Kelly’s show slipped to “a new low in both the key demo and total viewers.”
Kelly’s much-hyped interview with Alex Jones that aired last week was her lowest-rated program to date until last night’s show, which “averaged a 0.4 rating in adults 18-49 and 3.4 million viewers, according to Nielsen data. That is down from a 0.5 and 3.6 million viewers [for] last week’s episode.” 60 Minutes had 7.2 million viewers while the rerun of America’s Funniest Home Videos got 3.9 million.
Kelly’s debut show, which featured an interview with Russian Vladimir Putin that was resoundingly mocked because Kelly seemed way out of her league, lost to a rerun of 60 Minutes and her second show could not beat out reruns of 60 Minutes and America’s Funniest Home Videos. Her third program, which featured the much-hyped Alex Jones interview, tanked as well, losing again to reruns of 60 Minutes and America’s Funniest Home Videos while drawing just 3.6 million viewers.
Kelly’s terrible ratings have led to many questions about her marketability and competence.
A network executive reportedly told CNN that NBC’s “fundamental mistake” was thinking Kelly was a “superstar” while Variety noted that Kelly’s star is “dimmer than ever” The Boston Globe eviscerated Kelly for being a “poseur” who lacks the “acumen” and “magnetism” to succeed at NBC News. Variety also pointed out that Kelly has pretty much alienated everyone in just three weeks at NBC.
NBC News has reportedly been “freaking out” over the“ratings disaster” that Kelly is turning out to be. Her ratings have been so terrible a New York radio host said NBC may be looking to unload Kelly and even ask Fox News to take her back.
But a high-ranking Fox News official told Breitbart News last week that there would be “no way” Kelly could crawl back to the network if such a scenario occurred and emphasized that Kelly simply would “not be welcomed back.”
Critical thinking fail. Post a credible source that indicates MK is pulling in high ratings since leaving Fox.
No KPC. Not going to work. You keep up. Don't lie. Post a credible news source that says MK ratings are good.
No you're a hypercritical liar. Post a link to back up your view of Megan Kelly being a quality journalist. Ratings make you a favorable/credible journalist. If people don't like you, you will not be considered a favorable/credible journalist. You didn't hesitate to criticize slade's link for being from a satirical news site. Post a link that backs up your position. No debate show a link. Put up or shut up.
That all you got KPC? Insult people's intelligence? You're nothing but a weak armchair critic afraid of the fact you just got caught in your own rhetoric. Lying wimp. Produce a link and back up your position.
Mike in CT's Link
"After her imbroglio with Trump during the primaries, I wrote a column praising Kelly's work at the time, titled "Megyn Kelly's Murrow moment." She had questioned Trump with such clarity and fearlessness that my column compared her performance to the great and legendary CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow, the gold standard for high-quality broadcasting journalism.
Megyn Kelly has the distinction of providing the toughest and most uncompromising challenge to Trump, which is what serious journalists should do."
One could easily find other citations of Megyn's Kelly's journalistic standing, albeit before his excursion into the realm of NBC News and her sputtering start there.
Look, the reality remains unchanged; Megyn Kelly did her job IMHO in the first debate and got excoriated for it. The campaign quickly mounted was that contrary to acting in the truest spirit of journalism this was questioning borne out of personal animus. To quote a good friend of mine here (bad Karma) "that's so much corral dust."
I am plainly aware that I'm probably not making any new friends here and probably pissing a few existing ones off but this is simply the way I see the situation.
Frankly, I haven't seen this much hyperbolic hyperventilation since the prom queen looked in the mirror and found a zit.
Mike, she asked her questions in a tone of voice, and, with facial expressions that were nothing short of silent contempt.
A Marine should be able to see that.
So far you have posted over 50 times in this thread alone, with really nothing much to say different, all the while looking down your nose like a junior high school girl trying to establish some sort of pecking order.
If you are gay for slade and sleepyhunter, just say so, then move along.
You need to take a break. Your posts on this thread make you look petty and small - and very very gay.
I respect both of you highly. You both reason well on an most subjects. But, I find confusion with any one who cannot or, refuses to admit that Megan Kelly took personal interest in ruining Trump. Sure it was/is her job to ask the tough questions. I and most others do not deny that. But, There are journalist out there right now that have asked the President tough questions and, that aren't receiving this treatment from the rowdy crowd. Not because of where they worked. But, because they were relevant QUESTIONS. That blows a hole in the boat you are trying to run the water on. There is no unfair treatment of poor ole Megan. She played a game with her perceived power and role and, she LOST. She wasn't beaten by Trump. She was beaten by the people you say you do not understand. Or, accuse of exaggerated behavior. Good ole Abe got it right about fooling the people. Some will be. But, not all.
God Bless men
You are all the above mentioned. You haven't produced any fact to back up your opinion. If you are gay. It wouldn't surprise me. You're just as guilty of calling names as anyone else. Lying hypocrite.
And btw KPC, for the coup de grace, your mom wears combat boots. :)
NBC News reportedly hired Megyn Kelly to take Matt Lauer’s spot on the Today show, but after Kelly’s disastrous first month at the network, Lauer is no longer on the hot seat, according to a Vanity Fair report. The puffy profile overlooks Kelly’s numerous professional and personality flaws and shortcomings, makes a litany of excuses for Kelly’s failures, and is not skeptical of NBC’s corporate spin regarding Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly’s terrible ratings. In it, Vanity Fair’s Sarah Ellison notes that the “silver lining” in Kelly’s disastrously wretched ratings may be that there are no longer rumors about Lauer’s job security.
“Upon Kelly’s arrival, one TV industry insider told me that her hire ‘was all about replacing Matt Lauer in a couple of years. They want to protect the Today show and they will build the Today show around her.’ One month into her tenure at NBC, though, those rumors have quieted,” Ellison writes.
Vanity Fair has noted that “during her time at Fox News, Kelly acquired the nickname ‘Me-Again’ on account of a perceived ability to put herself in the center of affairs.” Though NBC executives reportedly believed Kelly had “great potential in a number of formats,” a television executive told CNN recently that, after Kelly’s first few shows, NBC’s “fundamental mistake” was thinking that Kelly was a “superstar.”
Kelly’s debut show featured an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin that did nothing to elevate Kelly’s stature for she seemed out of her league and vapid. It could not beat out a rerun of 60 Minutes. Her next show lost to reruns of 60 Minutes and America’s Funniest Home Videos. Her third show, which featured her interview with Alex Jones, was her most hyped and controversial. But her interview with Jones alienated everyone and made her looked “two-faced,” according to critics on all sides. Kelly came off as “two-faced” because she told the establishment media that she would be tough on Jones while palling around with Jones in sunglasses (The Hill‘s Joe Concha said Kelly and Jones looked “like they were on a Tinder date pulling up to a drive-thru”) and promising him that her interview would not be a “gotcha hit piece.” But when NBC, after advertisers fled and Sandy Hook victims denounced the network, edited the Jones interview with numerous distracting jump cuts that made the piece look like a deliberate hit job, Kelly again came off as “two-faced.” Her fourth show was her lowest-rated to date, as Kelly failed to beat 60 Minutes yet again in addition to losing again to a rerun of America’s Funniest Home Videos.
Given the fact that, according to Ellison’s previous reporting, Kelly’s salary ($17 million annually) is probably “more than everyone on CBS News’s 60 Minutes combined,” Kelly’s ratings are even more disastrous.
Kelly’s ratings have gotten so bad that New York radio host Mark Simone said NBC was looking to already unload Kelly and may even try to convince Fox News to take her back.
But a high-ranking Fox News official told Breitbart News that there would be “no way” Kelly could crawl back because, simply, she “would not be welcomed back.”
Right now, NBC looks like the Houston Texans when they foolishly tried to build their franchise around former Denver Broncos quarterback Brock Osweiler at the start of last year. When Kelly went to NBC, a television executive told CNN that if Kelly fails, she could end up “fading into obscurity” just like Osweiler went from “the penthouse to the outhouse.”
Mike in CT's Link
Sorry, but that description doesn't square with the facts; rather it feeds into the self-sustaining myth that is the victimization of Donald Trump. The link is but one snippet of some of the hard-line questioning (this particular link omits a few mortars lobbed at John Kasich for example).
Excerpt from attached link:
"In fact, the Fox News anchor asked some of the toughest questions at the seventh Republican debate, including two cross-examinations of Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz that used old TV interviews to trip them up."
Again, I am acutely aware of how unpopular this position is and while I maintain the same high level of respect for the posters here I have to say in all honesty I have never witnessed this degree of group denial in any situation, over any subject matter, EVER.
Sorry folks but I can't ignore what I perceive as the truth in this matter.
It's a combination; it's a token of respect for people I've known and shared camaraderie with over many years that I acknowledge I'm taking an unpopular stand and want to be clear it's definitely nothing personal, just a stand dictated by principle.
There's also a definite bit of the rhetorical quality; I don't feel one should apologize for the reality, and that's not what that portion is about at all.
As I said I want to be very clear that at times with can disagree with people we hold in high regard and there's always (for me at least) a component of regret there but along with that the acceptance that there will be times no matter how strong a bond of friendship exists that there won't always be universal agreement.
It doesn't change my regard for them and I hope the feeling is mutual.
Thanks for the question and I appreciate the vein in which it was posed.
With all due respect I offered that what I posted was a sample; I'll help somewhat with making a point but I won't do all your homework. The issue also, isn't the question(s) asked of Trump it is how did they compare in tone and substance with questions asked of the other candidates.
One could also find a wealth of material on her questioning of others, e.g. the eternal mouthpiece of the black left, Richard (I can't recall his last name at the moment) for comparison.
Now to turn your argument around, no one (outside of perhaps Whitey) has even made a miniscular case to prove preconceived bias against Trump; to whit, no one has even commented on, let alone refuted Megyn Kelly's questioning of other candidates or persons. This is the group denial that some seem evidently content to continue.
I respect your right and everyone else's to disagree with my position; I don't however respect a vacuous or entirely disingenuous counter argument.
Please indeed; I feel no need to enter into any sort of measuring contest with you, and as deflections go that one was pretty lame; to be clear I offer no apology if my pointing out the fault in your response offended you; perhaps that was a tug of conscience or simply recognition of how ridiculous your argument was.
I'll re-post what I said since you either a)missed it the first time or b)are being obtuse as the faultiness of your "argument" was made plain: " The link is but one snippet of some of the hard-line questioning (this particular link omits a few mortars lobbed at John Kasich for example)."
Now if you are as erudite as you claim that meaning really shouldn't elude you; FYI, the absurdity of your argument could be made even more apparent if we examine the logic behind it; using the same "logic" you would castigate me for claiming the sun rises in the East if I only cited 7 days worth of data, claiming that I selectively omitted the other 358 days of the year. Yes, your argument is truly that absurd.
Whitey,
Your conflating two concepts that aren't interdependent; one can be the world's worst journalist (as defined by whatever metric desired) yet still be objective. You on the other hand display a distinctive lack of objectivity when you focus like a laser on her "feministic questioning" of Trump yet nary a word on her questioning of Scott Walker on abortion (was she feministic here too?) nor Jeb Bush on the Iraq War (was she pro or anti-war here?) as being cast in any bias.
You don't help position your criticism as being objective (Trump's question) when you posit it would have been acceptable coming from a male questioner. If you are inferring intent based solely on sex then you are operating out of a sexist mindset; one subset of biases-physician, heal thyself.
Again, the level of rationalization needed to maintain this level of group denial is positively staggering.
I guess Mike and Kevin are failing to remember this quote from MK herself in response to Newt's charges on her show. "You know what, Mr. Speaker? I’m not fascinated by sex, but I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we’re getting in the Oval Office,” Na. There was no personal agenda expressed in her questioning of Trump during the debate's was there? Surely since she outwardly expressed she felt it was her role to protect women??????? Come on guys.
This could go on and on. But, if I were either of you two, before I insinuated that most everyone disagreeing with you, was doing so from an emotional position, I'd look in the mirror first. I find it interesting that from a feminist standpoint, there is no bigger subject than the right to choose. She self proclaims to be on the clock for protecting women. Following her own cue, had she taken to her own show to insinuate Walker was a murderer, I wouldn't be in this discussion. But she didn't.
God Bless men
I'll bet somewhere in a dark corner of the local gin joint someone might be modestly impressed with your bluster; I'm not in the least; and speaking of "posing", all the huffing and puffing you continue to provide doesn't disguise the complete lack of any substantive proof of your claims-it's way past time for you to put up or shut up on that score.
Now if you'd like to enter into an adult discussion I'm always willing to avail myself of same; if all you've got is more secondary school tripe then I'm sorry to say you'll be consigned to the posters deemed unworthy of response.
Whitey,
Equal treatment is equal treatment; hitting every candidate's inconsistencies with statements, positions, etc. is just that-equal treatment. It's the height of irony that you level a charge of feminism by virtue of blatant sexism.
WVM,
You're certainly entitled to your interpretation of body language; what your not entitled to is an uncontestable labeling of your subjective analysis as indisputable fact. Observation of the body of work absent preconceived bias one doesn't arrive at your endpoint; my subjective analysis holds equal weight to yours (or the next persons).
Simply put, it is the height of hubris to assume perfection in interpretative abilities with regard to something as subjective as body language.
The one who should consider a bit of introspection is probably the guy suggesting those who have displayed objectivity need to exercise that looking glass.
Physician, heal thyself.
Mike, way back in this thread, you used your opinion and stated it as judge mental fact. Plainly. I can quote it for you if you like. But, you are truly a very smart guy that doesn't need that. All through this thread you have used your opinion as fact for everyone. Same applies. I could quote them all but, you are a very smart guy that doesn't need that.
So, Let's clarify this to see who is truly expressing hubris. You post MK asked difficult questions to all candidates. She did. However, where we are missing one another is your Insistence that anyone who didn't see it your way was "confused". You said she treated all candidates the same. That she showed no personal interest in her treatment to the questions she gave Trump.
However, In opposition of that and, in TOTAL support of what I have claimed the whole time about MK concerning Trump, I posted a quote from MEGAN KELLY herself, on her OWN show, OUTSIDE of the debate's, where she claimed she did exhibit personal interest in the question she asked Trump. Where she self proclaimed to be the spokesman for the cause she represented. And, even gave a reason why she asked that question.
I'm not sure how in the world it could be any clearer who is expressing an abnormal amount of stubborn pride in this situation when you look at this reality. Add in the 100% fact that body language is something everyone expresses during conversation and, this becomes a one sided conversation really quickly. I'm simply lost why her own admission, PLUS her own actions as evidence of her intent, doesn't win out over what you and Kevin think.
It is not one hair off my head either way. It is of no consequence to me how these two ended up in a pissing match. Honestly, your opinion or, mine really doesn't matter in the reality of this. However, what she said DOES. There is no stronger evidence than that. Right?
God Bless men
Mike in CT's Link
Actually, you'd be hard pressed to do that in this thread; my initial post was on 6/8 and I offered no opinion on Ms. Kelly's journalistic bona fides. My next post was on 6/22 and again, no opinion was rendered.
My first post where I did offer (IMHO) was on 6/27 but that was after providing a link to documented facts, not quite the same as posting opinion absent facts (Hint-that is what many posters, absent yourself, have done here; post opinion as fact absent supporting evidence.)
Again I posted an opinion on 6/28 but again, linked that to the facts.
Now, to address the interview you're hanging your hat on; at best you can draw an inference but guess what?; that's an opinion (interpretations can be subjective after all). One interpretation could be getting to the truth or dispelling the rumors regarding all the charges against Trump; that's a journalist's job WVM; you, me or the man on the moon liking or disliking it matters not a whit.
So to clarify who's expressing hubris; I would submit those parties would be the ones who have leveled a charge based solely on opinion (or a selective interpretation of an interview) and rebuffed all factually-based challenges to that position.
I do like and respect you immensely but in this case I could not disagree with you more.
Whitey,
"Kelly was in the long line of "reporters" that smelled blood in the water and thought they had a shot at taking Trump down.she thought she could ride the outraged woman wave created by trumps "grab them by the Pussy" line."
You have your chronology wrong; the first Presidential debate in which Kelly posed her now infamous question to Trump was on Aug 6, 2016; the story of the Billy Bush/Trump exchange broke on Oct 7, 2016 when the Washington Post released a video of the exchange.
"Case closed,"
Only if you're prepared to ascribe Ms. Kelly's motivation for the question to hitherto unknown clairvoyant abilities she possesses.
Now, tell me again about your objectivity in this matter......
Mad Puppy,
I hate to break this to you but you're the one speaking in circles, obfuscating and doing everything humanly possible to avoid the obvious; admitting that you haven't produced one iota of fact to support your OPINION.
I've now provided you at least 3 opportunities to make your case and so far I've gotten the type of bombast and bluster I'd expect from the playground bully in Junior High. Maybe there are folks in the neighborhood who dissolve into a puddle when you beat your chest but I'm more inclined to recommend you to the nearest store carrying a generous supply of pacifiers.
And for the record, your amateurish attempts at provocation are laughable at best; 4 years in the USMC provided me a doctorate in dealing with real insults.
Why don't you try this; grow up or just clam up.
In any event I've indulged your immaturity at least one post too many; you're relegated to the bench now, enjoy the splinters.
God Bless men
by TONY LEE3 Jul 2017735 Megyn Kelly’s Sunday newsmagazine show took a week off, and a Dateline rerun promptly got more viewers than Kelly’s last show compared to the 3.4 million viewers Kelly got the week before, according to Nielsen data.
The fact that a rerun of Dateline got more viewers than Kelly’s last show in her 7 p.m. time slot on a holiday weekend when many television viewers were out barbecuing or at the beach may lead NBC to consider whether the show is worth putting back on the air after football season. CNN recently pointed out that television executives have already been wondering whether the show will get axed.
Breitbart News has detailed NBC’s concerns about Kelly’s terrible ratings, competence, and marketability:
Kelly’s debut show, which featured an interview with Russian Vladimir Putin that was resoundingly mocked because Kelly seemed way out of her league, lost to a rerun of 60 Minutes and her second show could not beat out reruns of 60 Minutes and America’s Funniest Home Videos. Her third program, which featured the much-hyped Alex Jones interview, tanked as well, losing again to reruns of 60 Minutes and America’s Funniest Home Videos while drawing just 3.6 million viewers.
…
A network executive reportedly told CNN that NBC’s “fundamental mistake” was thinking Kelly was a “superstar” while Variety noted that Kelly’s star is “dimmer than ever” The Boston Globe eviscerated Kelly for being a “poseur” who lacks the “acumen” and “magnetism” to succeed at NBC News. Variety also pointed out that Kelly has pretty much alienated everyone in just three weeks at NBC.
However, If she were to openly pick the smear Trump agenda back up and, run with it like she did at Fox, she'd get more of the NBC type viewers. Problem is, she won't do it like that due to her own insistence she is a fair journalist. She's trying to hide her intent behind the 'real journalism" skit she's been preaching for the last year and a half.
She basically has put herself in the all in or all out category with her choices in the last year. Some will say that you have to do that at Fox. We all now that isn't true. But, she must do that at NBC to be effective. Bluntly, she isn't playing the all in to ruin Trump formation correctly in order to be shown favor by her new viewing audience.
She let her ego and her own disdain of Trump ruin her career. She is going to have plenty of time for her kids in the near future though so, it might have been for her best. God Bless men
""It looks like NBC talent Megyn Kelly still has not hit rock bottom. Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly reached another low for total viewers last night, this time only getting 3.1 million total viewers compared to the measly 3.21 million total viewers Kelly got the week before when she established her previous low, according to Nielsen data.""
Yea,it's the viewers fault, they just do not understand or appreciate PCTP journalism or those who get aroused watching her blather. .........
""NBC’s Megyn Kelly could not even get 3 million total viewers this week, hitting another new low as her sunday newsmagazine show’s ratings continue to plummet.""
This is the 50% who don't get aroused by her blather.
A week after NBC ended Megyn Kelly’s misery and pulled the initial run of Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly at least two episodes sooner than planned, a Dateline rerun promptly got more viewers than Kelly’s last show.
According to Nielsen data, Sunday’s Dateline rerun got nearly four million total viewers (3.96 million) with a .6 rating in the key 18-49 demo. Kelly’s last show got 3.5 million viewers, up from 3.1 million total viewers two weeks before in the same time slot (7 p.m.) and 2.71 million total viewers the week before that in a different (9 p.m.) time slot. Kelly’s last show got a .5 rating in the key demo, which the Dateline rerun last night also beat.
