# Megyn Kelly is a hit



## WO312 (Jan 24, 2003)

Sad news for you Fox News haters - after just the first month Megyn Kelly is second behind Bill O'Reilly in cable news.

Snippet: Well, that didn't take long. Just one month after taking over her new 9 p.m. time slot at Fox News Channel, Megyn Kelly has the No. 2 show on cable news.

Full story: http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...e-news-20131029,0,4979456.story#axzz2jE6mzaML


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

I guess we're supposed to be excited by this "news"??


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

but is she HAWT?


----------



## WO312 (Jan 24, 2003)

Alfer said:


> I guess we're supposed to be excited by this "news"??


Nope. Just following up on a thread when she first started that basically said a lot of people thought her good first couple of nights were a fluke.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

She has a good timeslot, sandwiched between O'Reily and Hannity, and she looks better in a dress than Hannity.


----------



## drewman (Apr 16, 2000)

Don't worry about the confusion. Until USA Today has an opinion on something Alfer is always a bit lost.

As for the HAWT question....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/20/megyn-kelly-in-gq-fox-new_n_786421.html


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Never heard of her.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

drewman said:


> Don't worry about the confusion. Until USA Today has an opinion on something Alfer is always a bit lost.
> 
> As for the HAWT question....
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/20/megyn-kelly-in-gq-fox-new_n_786421.html


OH ZING!!! Ya got me again!! :up:


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

She's definitely a hit on the Daily Show.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

WO312 said:


> Sad news for you Fox News haters - after just the first month Megyn Kelly is second behind Bill O'Reilly in cable news.
> 
> Snippet: Well, that didn't take long. Just one month after taking over her new 9 p.m. time slot at Fox News Channel, Megyn Kelly has the No. 2 show on cable news.
> 
> Full story: http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...e-news-20131029,0,4979456.story#axzz2jE6mzaML


I'm not sad that she is second in cable infotainment. Nor am I surprised.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

I like OReilly, especially his (former) radio show.

I'm not a fan of Ms Kelly though. In general, female "bulldog" anchors come across as unappealing.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

drewman said:


> Don't worry about the confusion. Until USA Today has an opinion on something Alfer is always a bit lost.
> 
> As for the HAWT question....
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/20/megyn-kelly-in-gq-fox-new_n_786421.html


That looks nothing like her.

Makes me think of this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/photoshop-body-evolution_n_4170021.html?ir=Style


----------



## Mr. Soze (Nov 2, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> That looks nothing like her.
> 
> Makes me think of this.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/photoshop-body-evolution_n_4170021.html?ir=Style


I find the real version of her highly attractive. I have never seen her show, and likely would never watch, but she's a looker.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

She is very hot


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

heySkippy said:


> Never heard of her.


Nor have I. I guess I'm just not in the right demo for this person.

Can't begrudge somebody for being successful, though. Hope it's not the usual drivel that surrounds it.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

id hit it


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

DouglasPHill said:


> She is very hot


And she's had three kids. During an interview about her new show, she gave a lot of credit to the makeup and wardobe people at Fox for her looks. I can believe it, NBC did a makeover of Hannah Storm after they hired her and it was an incredible transformation.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I'd rather watch Erin Burnett. She's gorgeous. But Megyn Kelly is certainly very attractive.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

Jesda said:


> I like OReilly, especially his (former) radio show.
> 
> I'm not a fan of Ms Kelly though. In general, female "bulldog" anchors come across as unappealing.


I like Megyn Kelly as a news anchor, but I don't like her in this role. It seems like she is putting on a "meanie" act. I guess part of the problem is that she seems so much smarter than the people she interviews that they don't have a chance.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Kablemodem said:


> I like Megyn Kelly as a news anchor, but I don't like her in this role. It seems like she is putting on a "meanie" act. I guess part of the problem is that she seems so much smarter than the people she interviews that they don't have a chance.


I think that that's because she IS quite intelligent and well informed.

And hot.

I like strong assertive women.

They're hot..


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

I know she is, but she is too smart for the pinheads she has on the show.


----------



## DLL66 (Oct 21, 2002)

philw1776 said:


> I think that that's because she IS quite intelligent and well informed.
> 
> And hot.
> 
> ...


:up: Agreed with this post. She is very smart and really hawt!!! I don't think she is mean. She takes control of the interview and doesn't allow the interviewees to stray out on their own agenda.


----------



## Jayjoans (Jan 23, 2003)

I realize nobody cares, but if I had to choose one Fox chick, it would be Shannon Bream. Megyn Kelly is a ways down the list, somewhere behind Dana Perrino. Shannon and Dana seem to me to be genuine, Megyn not so much.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

Jenni Lee > *


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

Jesda said:


> Jenni Lee > *


Her sister Jenna is totally cute. And I love Dana Perino.


----------



## ebockelman (Jul 12, 2001)

This thread needs more pictures of the lovely Megyn.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

I'd let her analyze my portfolio (she started at FBN)


----------



## agentpaul (Feb 28, 2002)

What makes her even hotter is her intelligent thoughtful conversations about Santa.

Megyn Kelly says 'Santa is white' remarks were tongue-in-cheek


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I think Megyn says everything with a wink and a nod, knowing that it is all BS for Fox News consumers - unlike Gretchen Carlson or Elizabeth Hasselbeck who are true believers.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

So she's a sellout, then?


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

Turtleboy said:


> I think Megyn says everything with a wink and a nod, knowing that it is all BS for Fox News consumers - unlike Gretchen Carlson or Elizabeth Hasselbeck who are true believers.


So she's a FNAINO. Fox News Anchor In Name Only.


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

heySkippy said:


> So she's a sellout, then?


Just like Chris Wallace.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

agentpaul said:


> What makes her even hotter is her intelligent thoughtful conversations about Santa.
> 
> Megyn Kelly says 'Santa is white' remarks were tongue-in-cheek


The remarks she made were during a discussion about the idiotic Slate article about Santa. People don't seem to know this...


----------



## agentpaul (Feb 28, 2002)

crazywater said:


> The remarks she made were during a discussion about the idiotic Slate article about Santa. People don't seem to know this...


Oh I know all about it. I wonder why she felt so compelled to talk about it if it is so idiotic. Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

crazywater said:


> The remarks she made were during a discussion about the idiotic Slate article about Santa. People don't seem to know this...


I don't know anything about an idiotic article on Slate about Santa.

I am aware of this article on Slate that the Fox News discussion was about:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...e_meet_santa_the_penguin_a_new_christmas.html

If someone were to take the time to actually read the article maybe they would understand the author's point of view on Santa.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

The thread title is missing a letter...


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Megyn is intelligent and has a sense of humor. Great show.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

philw1776 said:


> Megyn is intelligent


Is this the same Megyn who said that the UC Davis students that took a blast of military-grade pepper spray directly to the face from point blank range from a canister designed to be deployed at a distance against large crowds shouldn't be complaining because "it's a food product, essentially"?


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

agentpaul said:


> What makes her even hotter is her intelligent thoughtful conversations about Santa.
> 
> Megyn Kelly says 'Santa is white' remarks were tongue-in-cheek


Funny thing is, the original article was a bit tongue-in-cheek, to make its point. Megyn seemed to completely miss that herself, of course. A couple of her panelists didn't seem to want to play along with the "outrage" about it, so kudos to them.

(Yeah, maybe not "outrage," I couldn't think of the appropriate word.)


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

Jesda said:


> I'd let her analyze my portfolio (she started at FBN)


She sorta looks like Amy Adams.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

agentpaul said:


> What makes her even hotter is her intelligent thoughtful conversations about Santa.
> 
> Megyn Kelly says 'Santa is white' remarks were tongue-in-cheek


I think the bigger issue for some wasn't even the Santa comment; it was the follow-up comment that Jesus was white, which I note she appears to have doubled-down on.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> I think the bigger issue for some wasn't even the Santa comment; it was the follow-up comment that Jesus was white, which I note she appears to have doubled-down on.


She didn't so much double down on the Jesus thing as she just dismissed it with a practically parenthetical comment about the question of his race being "far from settled" buried in the middle of her playing the victim and attacking her detractors for taking her Santa comment too seriously.

That's the standard Fox News Channel play (and interestingly, also the standard operating procedure for the Church of Scientology): always attack, never defend.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

hefe said:


> Funny thing is, the original article was a bit tongue-in-cheek, to make its point. Megyn seemed to completely miss that herself, of course. A couple of her panelists didn't seem to want to play along with the "outrage" about it, so kudos to them.
> 
> (Yeah, maybe not "outrage," I couldn't think of the appropriate word.)


Fauxrage?

-smak-


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

busyba said:


> The thread title is missing a letter...


Took me far too long to see it, but when I did, I hit bricks.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

> Teacher to student: You can't be Santa -- you're black!


 Ho ho -- huh?

The family of an African-American high school student in New Mexico says he's crushed after a teacher questioned why he was wearing Santa garb during a school holiday dress-up day last week, CNN affiliate KOAT reported.

The teacher told Christopher Rougier, a freshman at Cleveland High School, that he couldn't be Santa because Santa is white, the student's father, Michael, told KOAT.

"He was embarrassed," he told the station.

Now, his son doesn't want anything to do with Christmas.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/us/new-mexico-teacher-black-santa/index.html?hpt=hp_c2


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

DeDondeEs said:


> She sorta looks like Amy Adams.


Nah she looks like Katie Couric's hot younger sister.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

DeDondeEs said:


> She sorta looks like Amy Adams.





Ment said:


> Nah she looks like Katie Couric's hot younger sister.


I see the Amy Adams connection ... who is it, btw?


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

getreal said:


> I see the Amy Adams connection ... who is it, btw?


Jenna Lee. But for my Fox redhead give me some Pattie Ann Browne, still cookin' at 48.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

I have a friend who believes he doesn't have a biased bone in his body. I have observed that he treats Blacks and other groups fairly, courteously. He is a good person.

He continually brings up the issue of race. Blacks who commit crimes. Blacks who allege police brutality and it turns out to be unclear, etc. Any Black/White event in the news, he is there. Lots of stuff many would regard as common courtesy he regales against as absurdly "politically correct." He goes absolutely berserk on the "double standard" issue that Blacks use the N word but Whites cannot (yet he has never used the word in my hearing and I doubt he ever has or has wanted to).

Megan Whasis is I'm sure a nice person beloved by her family and virtuous in her behavior regarding race. But she chooses certain topics. Her free choice; I have no argument with that. But there is only so much finite time in your life, so limited an array of issues you can choose to talk about. Choosing conversations negative toward Blacks is a puzzling choice to me. Choosing conversations negative toward anything (obviously except for our responsibility to speak out against evil) is extremely puzzling to me. But, like the old and revered cliche, I will defend to my death the right of Megan and her like to choose whatever she wants to talk about.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

I liked the Daily Show's take on the 'Santa is white' remarks.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...r-on-christmas---s--t-s-getting-weird-edition


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

Well, Megyn Kelly is very beautiful. But she obviously isn't very smart. And I'm sure what they say about beauty being skin deep is true. Maybe if she had a job where she didn't have to talk and express her opinions...


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

It's one thing to make stupid statements on TV... lord knows there's no shortage of that, on any network, and with the requirement to "always be newsin'", 24/7, people are going to say stupid things. We all understand that.

But then to try to come out a few days later and blame _us_ for not "getting" the humor in what was _clearly_ an earnest and completely serious position is totally lame. It's like she doesn't realize what she said is recorded for anyone to go back and look at: if you watch the original segment there is absolutely no possibility, zero, zilch, none, that she was kidding or being tongue-in-cheek.

I get that she has a new show she's trying to launch and a brand to protect and she doesn't want to seem like she said something stupid and meant it. She doesn't want to go down the "Glenn Beck" path. However, this response was an embarrassment: it was insulting to her viewers. If she wanted to disavow the comments she should have said she got carried away in the moment and apologize and promise to do better.

On the other hand she knows her audience better than me: perhaps all they're hoping for is a tiny nail to hang their hat on and forgive her, and she doesn't care what the rest of us think.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

madscientist said:


> On the other hand she knows her audience better than me: perhaps all they're hoping for is a tiny nail to hang their hat on and forgive her, and she doesn't care what the rest of us think.


Forgive what? Hell, they agree with her.


----------



## sbourgeo (Nov 10, 2000)

hairyblue said:


> Well, Megyn Kelly is very beautiful. But she obviously isn't very smart. And I'm sure what they say about beauty being skin deep is true. Maybe if she had a job where she didn't have to talk and express her opinions...


Sometimes smart people say dumb things (whether they believe them or not).

Megyn has a J.D and presumably has passed a bar exam, so she's got to have something going on upstairs. She certainly represented herself well when responding to a segment on Fox where they said that the growing number of households with a female breadwinner were basically contributing to the downfall of society. That doesn't excuse her wading into racial waters in this case of course.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

heySkippy said:


> Forgive what? Hell, they agree with her.


She probably lost a lot of points with her audience for her half-hearted weaselly "I'm sorry you're offended" semi-apology, which clearly went MUCH too far towards political correctness.


----------



## Barmat (Jun 1, 2001)

She was catering to her Demographics. White, male, old and uneducated.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Wil said:


> ... *Megan Whasis* is I'm sure a nice person ...


 Who is Megan Whasis?

I thought this was thread about Megyn Kelly, the FOXy talking head.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

madscientist said:


> It's one thing to make stupid statements on TV... lord knows there's no shortage of that, on any network, and with the requirement to "always be newsin'", 24/7, people are going to say stupid things. We all understand that.
> 
> *But then to try to come out a few days later and blame us for not "getting" the humor in what was clearly an earnest and completely serious position is totally lame. It's like she doesn't realize what she said is recorded for anyone to go back and look at: if you watch the original segment there is absolutely no possibility, zero, zilch, none, that she was kidding or being tongue-in-cheek.*


What part of Megyn Kelly's comments was stupid? And what part was earnest?

As I said in the Attack on Christmas 2013 thread, where this clip was discussed much more extensively than it was here in this thread, it seems pretty clear to me that:

1. Any comments Megyn made about Santa being white were absolutely tongue-in-cheek, as evidenced by her frequent asides to the "kids" in the viewing audience. She was acknowledging that the whole topic was ridiculous and she was just playing along with it. It was clearly meant as a joke.

2. Her comment about Jesus being white was earnest, and is very defensible. Sure, we could debate all day about whether Midele Eastern Jews are white, and there are valid arguments on both sides. But to absolutely say this statement was wrong or stupid is just completely biased.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

I didn't think that she sounded like she was "absolutely tongue in cheek." In fact, she seemed pretty disappointed that a couple panelists didn't want to take up the charge with her. She's the one that didn't seem to understand that that article she was criticizing was tongue in cheek about the penguin, and wanted to use that to make the usual Fox case about the attacks on traditional Christmas and its symbols.

I don't think she's dumb. She has to know that she's pushing the boundaries of reason to serve her employers' goal of pandering to the fear and outrage of their viewers about all the ways they are under attack in today's culture. In other words, she was just trying to fill her "War on Christmas" quota for the day.


----------



## WO312 (Jan 24, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> ..........But to absolutely say this statement was wrong or stupid is just completely biased.


Bingo. These posters ARE biased. Against Fox News. I haven't responded to any of these posts because there is no point. I do get a kick out of reading them though.

Anybody who says she is stupid has never watched her show. Making a statement like that says more about the poster than about her. You may not like her or agree with her, but she's not at all stupid.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

WO312 said:


> Bingo. These posters ARE biased. Against Fox News. I haven't responded to any of these posts because there is no point. I do get a kick out of reading them though.
> 
> Anybody who says she is stupid has never watched her show. Making a statement like that says more about the poster than about her. You may not like her or agree with her, but she's not at all stupid.


One person said she "isn't very smart." Nobody called her stupid.

The "faux-rage" is amusing.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

hefe said:


> I didn't think that she sounded like she was "absolutely tongue in cheek." In fact, she seemed pretty disappointed that a couple panelists didn't want to take up the charge with her. She's the one that didn't seem to understand that that article she was criticizing was tongue in cheek about the penguin, and wanted to use that to make the usual Fox case about the attacks on traditional Christmas and its symbols.
> 
> I don't think she's dumb. She has to know that she's pushing the boundaries of reason to serve her employers' goal of pandering to the fear and outrage of their viewers about all the ways they are under attack in today's culture. In other words, she was just trying to fill her "War on Christmas" quota for the day.


Sure, the discussion substituting a penguin for Santa Claus, as suggested by the Slate article, was serious, since that was the point of the discussion. It's a valid discussion and you can't fault her for having an opinion about whether that's a good idea. I don't think many people would consider it a good idea.

But her frequent mentions of the fact that "Santa is white. I just want to make sure all the kids out there know this" were clearly tongue-in-cheek, since she's acknowledging they're talking about a fictional character and referencing the fact that she has to pretend he's real to make sure the kids don't find out he's fake from Fox News.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> 2. Her comment about Jesus being white was earnest, and is very defensible. Sure, we could debate all day about whether Midele Eastern Jews are white, and there are valid arguments on both sides. But to absolutely say this statement was wrong or stupid is just completely biased.


There are black Jews today. Was there absolutely positively no such thing 2000 years ago?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> There are black Jews today. Was there absolutely positively no such thing 2000 years ago?


It's entirely possible there were. That's why I said we could debate this all day and there would be good arguments on either side. I'm not saying whether Jesus was white. I'm simply saying that a declaration that Jesus was white is not automatically wrong, either, and shouldn't subject Megyn Kelly to all kinds of scrutiny.

As I said in the other thread, depending on how you define "white," you could consider all people of Middle Eastern descent to be "white." It really depends on how many "races" one accepts and whether mixtures create new races or must be classified in one of the traditional races.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

hefe said:


> [...]
> She has to know that she's pushing the boundaries of reason to serve her employers' goal of pandering to the fear and outrage of their viewers about all the ways they are under attack in today's culture. In other words, she was just trying to fill her "War on Christmas" quota for the day.


It seems clear that this poster has his own agenda in evaluating the Megyn Kelly remarks: "employer's goal of pandering", "fear and outrage of their viewers about all the ways they are under attack", and "'War on Christmas' quota." At least *hefe *is very open and unabashed about his bias, so a reader can evaluate *hefe's *remarks with that in mind.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Sure, the discussion substituting a penguin for Santa Claus, as suggested by the Slate article, was serious, since that was the point of the discussion. It's a valid discussion and you can't fault her for having an opinion about whether that's a good idea. I don't think many people would consider it a good idea.


The suggestion of the penguin itself in the article was tongue-in-cheek. It was to make a point. She wanted to discuss it as if it was something that was a serious suggestion, it seemed.



DevdogAZ said:


> But her frequent mentions of the fact that "Santa is white. I just want to make sure all the kids out there know this" were clearly tongue-in-cheek, since she's acknowledging they're talking about a fictional character and referencing the fact that she has to pretend he's real to make sure the kids don't find out he's fake from Fox News.


Yes, I agree that she was finding it funny that she was talking to kids about it on her show, but I think the humor came strictly from the fact of that. That she was addressing the kids. I think she was serious in wanting to assure them of his whiteness. The rest of the discussion was about defending his whiteness. She said you shouldn't have to change it because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

The entire basis for the discussion was to argue against an essay by a black author about what it feels like to have the Santa icon not include you. The fact that she wanted to argue against it on her show is telling enough. How about just empathize with the person and be done with it?


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

MikeCC said:


> It seems clear that this poster has his own agenda in evaluating the Megyn Kelly remarks: "employer's goal of pandering", "fear and outrage of their viewers about all the ways they are under attack", and "'War on Christmas' quota." At least *hefe *is very open and unabashed about his bias, so a reader can evaluate *hefe's *remarks with that in mind.


It's more active than necessary to call it an "agenda."

But yes, I do have an opinion of what they do on the Fox News Channel, and I'm not hiding that. All the evidence that I see points to it. Sure, you can call it bias, and we all have our biases. But I (and I know you can never prove this to another person) am primarily driven by facts and logic and that's what informs my opinions. I can't help that I see what I see. I recognize that when a person is aligned with a point of view, as many are with Fox's, that criticism feels personal because of the shared viewpoint. Hardly any way around that.

But you will notice, I never called Megyn Kelly stupid.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Back to the topic of Megyn's show being a hit, it looks like the OP's topic heading was correct. 
From Variety&#8230;

"Fox and CNN both made some significant changes to their lineup in 2013, with FNC's revamped primetime lineup, introduced on Oct. 7, posting gains in both total viewers and adults 25-54 vs. the block's 2013 season-to-date average. The newest program, "The Kelly File" with Megyn Kelly, has improved the 9 p.m. hour by 23% in total viewers and 13% in adults 25-54 ...

Also of note outside of primetime, "The Five" (5-6 p.m. ET) and "Red Eye" (3-4 a.m. ET) had their most-watched years to date.

Best news for CNN...on pace for its least-watched year on record in primetime, was that it was able to hold steady or rise a bit in various total-day categories, like afternoon show "The Lead With Jake Tapper," which is second among the cable news nets in its timeslot."

Jake Tapper's show is decent, but that's another thread.

http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/fox-...se-1200964903/

(2nd try at post 1st was garbled in Safari)


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

hefe said:


> The suggestion of the penguin itself in the article was tongue-in-cheek. It was to make a point. She wanted to discuss it as if it was something that was a serious suggestion, it seemed.


Sure it was. And yes, she tried to discuss it seriously. If that's what people are making an issue of, then I totally understand, since it seems like a perfect example of inciting the "War on Christmas" folks. However, I don't think that's why people are taking issue with the clips from this show. I think the two main reasons it's gained such notoriety are the fact that she said Santa was white, and that she said Jesus was white. And while we can have a spirited debate about the veracity of those statements, we can't definitively say they're wrong. Therefore, it's pointless to pile on Megyn Kelly for those reasons.



hefe said:


> Yes, I agree that she was finding it funny that she was talking to kids about it on her show, but I think the humor came strictly from the fact of that. That she was addressing the kids. I think she was serious in wanting to assure them of his whiteness. The rest of the discussion was about defending his whiteness. She said you shouldn't have to change it because it makes you feel uncomfortable.
> 
> The entire basis for the discussion was to argue against an essay by a black author about what it feels like to have the Santa icon not include you. The fact that she wanted to argue against it on her show is telling enough. How about just empathize with the person and be done with it?


Should she have been more compassionate and empathetic in discussing that article? Of course. Should she have exercised more discretion and simply not talked about it at all? Probably. But like I said, those aren't the reasons the clip became so widely circulated and discussed.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Sure it was. And yes, she tried to discuss it seriously. If that's what people are making an issue of, then I totally understand, since it seems like a perfect example of inciting the "War on Christmas" folks. However, I don't think that's why people are taking issue with the clips from this show. I think the two main reasons it's gained such notoriety are the fact that she said Santa was white, and that she said Jesus was white. And while we can have a spirited debate about the veracity of those statements, we can't definitively say they're wrong. Therefore, it's pointless to pile on Megyn Kelly for those reasons.


I like to take on more thorough discussions and examine the entire context, so I can't speak for or defend anyone who is only concerned about one aspect. Since it became a discussion topic, I looked at what people were talking about and formed my own opinion after viewing it all in context. And based on that, I had certain criticisms which I've noted.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

madscientist said:


> It's one thing to make stupid statements on TV...people are going to say stupid things.
> 
> But then to try to come out a few days later and blame us for not "getting" the humor in what was clearly an earnest and completely serious position is totally lame.


it's not lame, it's planned. many of her viewers agree with her position, and the rest will forgive or ignore her if they disagree.

by not backing down, the conversation continues, and might bring new viewers, which is the goal - to make more money by increasing ratings and presence. many tv personalities follow the same formula, and as long as it works, it will continue.


----------



## agentpaul (Feb 28, 2002)

WO312 said:


> Bingo. These posters ARE biased. Against Fox News. I haven't responded to any of these posts because there is no point. I do get a kick out of reading them though.
> 
> Anybody who says she is stupid has never watched her show. Making a statement like that says more about the poster than about her. You may not like her or agree with her, but she's not at all stupid.


Yet here you are, responding after you found another person that agrees with your viewpoint. If you have an opinion, come out and say it. Don't hide behind someone else to make your point. If your opinion is valid, it will stand on its own.

Letting someone else go first with an opposing post is cowardly, imho. Please grow some backbone.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I'm not biased against Fox News when they stick to the news. They do a good job of reporting actual news stories and generally get their facts right. It's only when they try to shove their opinion down my throat as fact that I get disgusted with them. What's ironic is that they point their fingers at others for doing exactly what they do. 

The news reports are fine. The talking head shows are just ridiculous.

I loved Jon Stewart's coverage of Megyn's diatribe about Santa Claus. There was nothing tongue in cheek about her statement. It was clearly obvious that she was dead serious about the "fact" that Santa Claus is white. Pretty laughable for a make-believe character since you could imagine him to be any color that suits you.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

mr.unnatural said:


> [...]
> Pretty laughable for a make-believe character since you could imagine him to be any color that suits you.


Um, you DO know that the character is based on a real historical person, right?


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

agentpaul said:


> Letting someone else go first with an opposing post is cowardly, imho. Please grow some backbone.


There's nothing cowardly about him; he just recognizes the futility of arguing of arguing his position here. Many of the anti-fox crowd don't watch fox. They form their opinion based not on personal observation but on what left wing websites, commentators, and comediennes tell them they're supposed to think. Traditional groupthink, with the group reinforcing its internal view to the exclusion of external evidence.

The Santa/Jesus segment is a perfect example of this. Those particular comments were clearly intended to be in jest, but the left seized upon it as an example of 'yet another stupid fox anchor pandering to stupid fox viewers'. There's little point in arguing it. World views are established. Minds are made up.


----------



## WO312 (Jan 24, 2003)

agentpaul said:


> Yet here you are, responding after you found another person that agrees with your viewpoint. If you have an opinion, come out and say it. Don't hide behind someone else to make your point. If your opinion is valid, it will stand on its own.
> 
> Letting someone else go first with an opposing post is cowardly, imho. Please grow some backbone.


You say get a backbone, I say I have far too many things to do with my time than get into POLITICAL discussions with people who aren't going to change their minds. Most everybody these days has their agenda and talking points and very little concession is ever given. Generally speaking, I just don't feel inclined to take the time for that. YMMV.

Most of my posts deal with entertainment or rendering help where I feel I can contribute.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

MikeCC said:


> Um, you DO know that the character is based on a real historical person, right?


Not so much. Not the current Santa, that's pretty much from magazine ads around the turn of the twentieth century. I don't know whether they had magazines oriented to Black audiences in those days, but if they had, and any advertisers used a Santa image, I suspect Santa would have been Black.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Wil said:


> Not so much. Not the current Santa, that's pretty much from magazine ads around the turn of the twentieth century.


Check this article, for depictions of St Nicholas over the past 700 years:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ld-St-Nick-700-years-hes-big-white-beard.html.

In particular, you'll see depictions in the mid-19th century by Thomas Nast that are remarkably close to our imagery today. Some of the depictions in the 17th century even bear significant resemblance as well. For example, see this 1686 depiction of 'father christmas':


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Does it really even matter who this fictional, magical, flying with reindeer, climbing down chimneys delivering presents to all the (Christian) children of the world is "based" on? A few important liberties have already been taken with the historical record. Why not a few more?


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

hefe said:


> Does it really even matter who this fictional, magical, flying with reindeer, climbing down chimneys delivering presents to all the (Christian) children of the world is "based" on?


I don't particularly see how it matters, other than to correct factual errors about whether or not Kelly's comments were accurate.



hefe said:


> A few important liberties have already been taken with the historical record. Why not a few more?


Clearly, tradition and imagery have evolved and will continue to evolve. The Santa of 20 years from now will look different than the Santa of today.

Generally though those evolutions are small and gradual over time, rather than abruptly replacing a portly bearded man with a penguin. 

I have to wonder if Kelly isn't the real genius here, having effectively punk'd the entire liberal media while at the same time undoubtedly gaining name recognition and ratings.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

hefe said:


> A few important liberties have already been taken with the historical record. Why not a few more?


i've been waiting for the younger, toned, tanned, and manscaped santa to emerge. can't be celebrating anyone with an unhealthy bmi, they must be shunned.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

smbaker said:


> Check this article, for depictions of St Nicholas over the past 700 years... In particular, you'll see depictions in the mid-19th century by Thomas Nast that are remarkably close to our imagery today.


The famous 1881 Nast cartoon is an outlier and the superficial similarity to the Santa Claus image of 15-20 years later may actually be a political reference. His 1861 cartoon doesn't look like the modern Santa to me at all. The 1868 Sugar Plum ad, which I don't remember seeing before and so thanks for that, certainly would seem to be a transitional piece.

I have always believed the modern Santa Claus image is from circa 1900 magazine ads, as I said, culminating in the seminal Coca Cola ads of the 1930s, but I wouldn't make it my life's work to refute the notion it could go back another few decades. Earlier that that, a whole other image.


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

I love the Coke based Santa. He has more magic.

I remember when Fox News was first available, seems like it was the early 90's. I was excited because I love to watch the news. And I was working the 3rd shift at work, so I was sleeping during the day. I tried watching this network but the spin of the new articles was so obvious that it bothered me. I asked myself, why are they doing this, I just want the news, not their opinion of the news. But I keep watching hoping it would change but if did not. 

Now I watch ABC, CBS, and NBC to get my news. It's not 24 hours but it's more balanced.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

MikeCC said:


> Um, you DO know that the character is based on a real historical person, right?


Yes, but Santa Claus as we know him today is a totally fictional character. The original didn't slide down chimneys or fly around with reindeer. Had Megyn indicated that the character he was based on was white, then she'd (probably) be correct. I say probably because I haven't researched the history and he could be an Arab for all I know. 



hairyblue said:


> Now I watch ABC, CBS, and NBC to get my news. It's not 24 hours but it's more balanced.


Unfortunately, even they tend to put their own slant on the news, but nowhere near as blatant as Fox does. The problem with a 24-hour news network is that there simply isn't enough source material that's actually newsworthy so they have to start making stuff up. Hence the reason Jon Stewart refers to Fox News as Bull****** Mountain. The problem is, they've put so many spins on various stories that they lose track of the lies they've told and start contradicting themselves.


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

WO312 said:


> You say get a backbone, I say I have far too many things to do with my time than get into POLITICAL discussions with people who aren't going to change their minds.


No political discussion going on here. We're talking about the journalistic merits of a Fox News blonde. Seriously. Go back and re-read the thread without the red hazed glasses on.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

One of the good things about Fox is, everyone knows they are biased. I don't really expect "news" from Megyn, or Bill, or Sean. What bugs me is when something that is SUPPOSED to be news is biased (some of the Zimmerman coverage as just one example).


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

allan said:


> I don't really expect "news" from Megyn...


Megyn claims you should:

"I'm a straight news anchor, I'm not one of the opinion hosts."

"The way we do it on the Fox News Channel is the straight news anchors like us give a hard time to both sides"

--Megyn Kelly


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

That's what they call gay people now? "Opinion Hosts?"


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

WO312 said:


> Bingo. These posters ARE biased. Against Fox News. I haven't responded to any of these posts because there is no point. I do get a kick out of reading them though.
> 
> Anybody who says she is stupid has never watched her show. Making a statement like that says more about the poster than about her. You may not like her or agree with her, but she's not at all stupid.


This. And, no, I will not contribute to the silliness.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think the two main reasons it's gained such notoriety are the fact that she said Santa was white, and that she said Jesus was white. And while we can have a spirited debate about the veracity of those statements, we can't definitively say they're wrong. Therefore, it's pointless to pile on Megyn Kelly for those reasons.


We don't pile on Megyn Kelly for believing Santa & Jesus were white, we pile on because we don't understand why the heck she cares that other people don't.

What was so offensive about that article that she devoted a segment on her show to it, and the author that nobody ever heard of?

Why was the premise of that article so horrible that it was promoted to prime time on a major news network, OTHER than it fit the War on Christmas agenda of that news network?

-smak-


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> Sure, the discussion substituting a penguin for Santa Claus, as suggested by the Slate article, was serious, since that was the point of the discussion. It's a valid discussion and you can't fault her for having an opinion about whether that's a good idea. I don't think many people would consider it a good idea.
> 
> But her frequent mentions of the fact that "Santa is white. I just want to make sure all the kids out there know this" were clearly tongue-in-cheek, since she's acknowledging they're talking about a fictional character and referencing the fact that she has to pretend he's real to make sure the kids don't find out he's fake from Fox News.


Let the kids find out from FOX News that Santa isn't real, then comfort them with the knowledge that FOX filed suit and actually got a court to rule that they have a legal right to knowingly lie when reporting "the news."


----------

