Saturday, May 21, 2016

Ooooooh she is bleeding from her whatever.....couldn't happen to a nicer gal!

Megyn Kelly’s much-publicized broadcast special with Donald Trump was supposed to launch the Fox News star into the stratosphere of television anchordom. Instead, the widely panned show seems to have achieved the opposite result: It exposed the extent of her limited mainstream appeal. Kelly drew just 4.8 million viewers on Tuesday night, a number television executives say is a disappointment by any measure. Three senior executives I spoke with say an audience of 9 million would have been a success. "Not good for her at all," was how one insider put it.
In the days since, Kelly has been working to contain the fallout. She took aim at critics on her cable show Wednesday night by deploying an age-old Fox News tactic: claiming the backlash was a result of liberal media bias. But behind the scenes, she is said to be worried about the response. “She’s very upset with the show reaction, and in hindsight with how it was produced,” one Fox veteran told me. 

The stakes for Kelly are high. As the Times recently reported, she’s in the final year of her contract and has been on a media blitz campaigning for a bigger job at Fox or another network. In recent interviews, she’s said her ambition is to be a combination of Oprah, Charlie Rose, and Barbara Walters. The special was essentially a public interview for her next job. But Kelly's chummy treatment of Trump may have damaged her brand as tough and fair-minded (this being Fox, the bar was pretty low). Worse, she cozied up to Trump at the very moment Rupert Murdoch decided Fox News will support the GOP front-runner. By lobbing softballs — or, as Times TV critic James Poniewozik described her questions, "airballs" — at Trump, Kelly came across like any other GOP cheerleader at the right-wing network.
The question for Kelly and her agents at CAA is where to go from here. Before the special, she had maneuvered herself into a position of significant leverage over her boss Roger Ailes and seemed poised to land either a new deal from Fox with a salary in the $25 million range or a plum job at another network. Industry sources said Ailes couldn’t afford to lose Kelly. Now her advantage looks smaller — a turn of events that surely pleases Ailes. According to one Fox insider, Ailes was heard “snickering” in a meeting yesterday when the topic of Kelly’s special came up in conversation. (Ailes's spokesperson Irena Briganti did not respond to a request for comment.)
For their part, Kelly's team doesn't seem eager to talk about the program. When I called her CAA agent Matt DelPiano to ask him about the special, he hung up.

16 comments:

Trooper York said...

The funniest comment on this article:

"the fantasy that Fox is big and has STARS is just that...a fantasy.. I have an older Fox fan in my house and he couldn't care less about who the players are.. when they are attacking and lying about the President, or people of color, or LGBT bashing, or putting down women, he is pleased... when they go in any other direction he switches to the Encore old westerns channel to watch prehistoric John Wayne movies..he is the typical Fox viewer!...lol... it's not gonna grow beyond that..flee, Megan, while you still can.."

It's like they know me and edutcher.

ricpic said...

"Why have you been angry at me so long, Donald?"

"Is it true, Michael?"

See the pattern? I could write something very true now but I won't...because COWARDICE!

edutcher said...

Well, anyone who watches "prehistoric John Wayne movies" knows good TV when he sees it.

Maybe that's the problem.

As for "attacking and lying about the President, or people of color, or LGBT bashing, or putting down women", sounds like somebody who's going to have a long Administration in front of him. Most of the attacks are merely the truth, and people are awfully tired of "people of color, LGBT, or womyn".

Chip Ahoy said...

Does wrapping myself in hawser rope and throwing myself on the railroad tracks with the big black steam locomotive in sight chugging toward us in the background make my ass look big?

Why yes, Megyn, it does.

There is an acquaintance I've known for a long time that I bet a hundred dollars right now I can have engaged in a 'laugh like Mutely' contest in three seconds flat. All I have to do is 1.5 seconds of laughing like Mutely and it's on. It's contagious. He'll outdo my Mutely laugh. Any good natured person within earshot is tempted to laugh like Mutely too. Soon enough the whole place is laughing asthmatically wheezing like Mutely.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

Fox's success was not due to its anchors but its content. Troop is correct. As CNN moved slightly right it picked up Fox views as Fox was moving left. Imagine that.

Megyn Kelly capable as a talking head, but there are lots of talking heads. Barbara Walters at least knew how to interview someone to make it interesting. Same with Larry King. I can't really criticize the interview...because I didn't watch it. I was either watching old Westerns on Encore or maybe rewatching Game of Thrones.

Trooper York said...

Let me ask you this. Is there a woman on FOX other than Greta who is not model beautiful. They are all hot bitches. It does not reflect reality. I bet there are thousands upon thousands of women who are incredibly smart and on point but look like Rosie O'Donnell so they will never see the light of day on FOX.

Trooper York said...

I saw the show just so I had something to blog about. I DVRed it so I could fast forward. One particular passage was vastly amusing.

She was asking Trump about bullying. He said he was never bullied. Unlikely but possible. I mean he was always rich and was probably in with the in crowd. The obvious implication was that Trump was a bully. She quantified it with some bullshit statistic that 90% of children between 8 and 16 were bullied. He said he was never bullied at that age but he had seen people in their fifties who were bullied. Megyn said "Sometimes even when they are forty five." Which she means is herself being bullied by Trump. Trump just glossed over it and didn't react. He used a technique that I use all the time. It is called "Genial contempt." Be polite but don't give a shit about what the other guy has to say because it is nonsense. That is what he did the whole interview.

edutcher said...

Trooper York said...

Let me ask you this. Is there a woman on FOX other than Greta who is not model beautiful. They are all hot bitches. It does not reflect reality

I think that's part of the Ailes touch.

He made sure the network had a strong Conservative feel, but he also made sure the women were lookers and dressed them as such. He knew his audience.

She was asking Trump about bullying. He said he was never bullied. Unlikely but possible. I mean he was always rich and was probably in with the in crowd

If you look at Trump's bio, it suggests he was something of a rowdy kid and his being placed in military school was his parents' way of getting him some needed discipline.

Anybody who tried to push him around may have gotten more than they bargained for. That's something money can't buy. It doesn't mean he was a bully, just that he was strong enough to be able to defend himself.

rcocean said...

"I bet there are thousands upon thousands of women who are incredibly smart and on point but look like Rosie O'Donnell so they will never see the light of day on FOX."

And they won't get on "The View" either. They only like Dumb women who look like Rosie.

chickelit said...

Also, Kelly never once even lobbed "airballs" at Hillary. Didn't even think of doing it, apparently. How's that for objectivity?

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

Genial contempt is a good way to go!

Mitt Romney was portrayed as a bully. Imagine that. There was some merit to it.

I would imagine Trump either gave it out, got it, or (like most people) had a combination of both.

And all the networks go with attractive women (Candy Crowley was the exception), Ailes made an emphasis on it at Fox. And is there anything wrong with that? Most men in television are picked for their looks too.

rcocean said...

Wow, EBL I see you're headlining over at Red-state and supporting Goldberg's "I'll never vote for Trump" position. I'd comment over there, except I despise Erickson and Commissar Wolfe too much.

Frankly, I hope plenty of so-called conservatives will read Goldberg's piece that says in effect "I'm ok with Hillary and 3 more Ginsburg's on the SCOTUS". It ties in with his acceptance of RINO's like Romney and McCain. IOW, maybe people will finally understand that Jonah has never been a Reagan conservative but a Neo-con/RINO, who fully accepts the whole "Invade the world/invite the world" concept that has given the USA so much trouble over the last 16 years.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

rcocean: I do not think Goldberg is saying that. With Roberts stabbing us in the back, Merritt Garland about to gut the 2nd Amendment, and a GOP senate that will roll over for Hillary anyway, the hypothetical of what picks Donald might place on the court is a bit of a stretch.

Trump can win this thing and I wish him well. I rather doubt the election will come down to me, but if it looks that way I will reconsider.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

raccoon: I did not notice the front page thing. Thanks for the heads up.

Some Seppo said...

"I bet there are thousands upon thousands of women who are incredibly smart and on point but look like Rosie O'Donnell so they will never see the light of day on FOX."

Those people are called producers and they speak to the "talent" through the IFB and then the "talent" says the producers' words. It's universal in the "news" biz.

Methadras said...

Fox always has the hawt wiminz. But that photo of Megyn looks like she needs to eat a couple of burgers on a daily basis stat.