Megyn Kelly to NBC for $15million/yr

[brycejones]

I think the term is Balanced.

That is the funniest thing I have read in a long time here. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[theeedude]

How many degrees lower/wider will NBC cameras be pointed once she joins?

 

[Zaap]

Fox is the "top" of cable news. Cable news is a fart in the wake of any network gig, regardless of the shittiness of that network.

This is true. NBC is much bigger than Fox News Network. The difference between maybe 2 million primetime viewers (Fox News) and 8 million (NBC).

I don't know how that shakes down as far as just the news on NBC vs whatever part of FNN Megan Kelly was part of, but it's probably still a huge difference.

 

[pcgeek11]

Fox is the "top" of cable news. Cable news is a fart in the wake of any network gig, regardless of the shittiness of that network.

OK.

 

[pcgeek11]

desire to be "balanced" is an embrace of the false notion that there are two sides to every story. In the pursuit of this inherently false notion, one must strive to invent a 2nd side in situations where none exists, in order to preserve that "balance" and perpetuate the false narrative.

This is the inherent fault of cable news and the 24-hour TV news model.

I think that there is two sides to nearly every story. It is rare for any story to have only one side. Some have many sides to tell.

 

[pcgeek11]

No worries, we're all pretty used to you having no idea.

It really shouldn't surprise anyone that an attractive female pundit would want to switch to a work place without a clear culture of sexual harassment like Fox.

And we're all used to you spewing insults and spouting off bull shit like you just did.

 

[werepossum]

You don't honestly believe that, do you, or are you just trying to make a "funny"?

With the provisions that almost nothing is without exceptions and that having two sides does not necessarily mean that the issue is balanced on a knife edge, yes, I believe that every issue has two sides. Take gay marriage, to me the most one-sided political issue of our time. There IS an opposing side, based on our traditions and religion. I don't find it close to being sufficient to deny someone equal protection, rights, and opportunity to pursue happiness, but I can understand it. Or take Hillary's private email server. Other SecStates and various and sundry government officials had done some official business on private and/or commercial servers. So it's not something she invented out of whole cloth, she just decided to take that '1' and crank it to '11' for her own personal benefit.

Almost never does a smart person do something without reason. Doesn't mean it's necessarily a GOOD reason, but then very seldom is an issue in D.C. presented honestly by either side. You may choose to understand that, or you may assume that everyone who opposes you politically is an idiot who has some sort of instinctive superpower for deceit, made easier by the fact that everyone who disagrees with you is a gullible moron.

Choose wisely, and note that one of those two choices will make you look like Rainman without math skills.

 

[zinfamous]

With the provisions that almost nothing is without exceptions and that having two sides does not necessarily mean that the issue is balanced on a knife edge, yes, I believe that every issue has two sides. Take gay marriage, to me the most one-sided political issue of our time. There IS an opposing side, based on our traditions and religion. I don't find it close to being sufficient to deny someone equal protection, rights, and opportunity to pursue happiness, but I can understand it. Or take Hillary's private email server. Other SecStates and various and sundry government officials had done some official business on private and/or commercial servers. So it's not something she invented out of whole cloth, she just decided to take that '1' and crank it to '11' for her own personal benefit.

Almost never does a smart person do something without reason. Doesn't mean it's necessarily a GOOD reason, but then very seldom is an issue in D.C. presented honestly by either side. You may choose to understand that, or you may assume that everyone who opposes you politically is an idiot who has some sort of instinctive superpower for deceit, made easier by the fact that everyone who disagrees with you is a gullible moron.

Choose wisely, and note that one of those two choices will make you look like Rainman without math skills.

Hey, I like that!

The issue here is when it comes to news reporting. Well, what used to be called journalism (which, honestly, was never the realm of the TV news networks). There may be two "sides" to nearly every story, but both sides are rarely worth reporting, due to validity of the opposition, however you want to frame the opposition. I am not saying that is always the case, but the problem here is presenting a roundly deposed argument as somehow equally valid, simply by including it in the story as some "attempt" to create a balanced view where none legitimately exists.

I like your example of gay marriage. It is very contentious politically, so it really is only possible to present both sides from a political viewpoint. If you want to present the political side of the story, you address the opposition, as the opposition here, in thought and what they consider morality, is certainly legitimate. Legally and constitutionally, however, there is really only one valid side to this--which is why we have legal gay marriage in all 50 states. It can only ever be that way, really, until someone decides to redraft the constitution.

I think of evolution vs creation: yes, there is an opposition here but this is where it is problematic in including that opposition as an equal, diametric argument against evolution. The argument is that there is some room in science to discredit evolution (there is none). This is an argument established only from the creationist standpoint, that has been made expressly to validate its own existence. This is not balanced reporting to claim that injecting creationism in schools or allowing a platform for debating evolution within a scientific discussion is an equal opposition to scientific theory.

This is the same as climate science. Treating the 1 or 2 non-peer-reviewed papers from the fossil fuel industry that attempt to discredit the tens of thousands of actual science papers that support the prevailing, and completely non-controversial arguments regarding climate change, global temperatures, and human involvement, as somehow equal in measure, and so must receive equal air-time to show "balance," is dishonest at best, fraudulent at worse. You don't give equal measure to the clearly fraudulent argument simply to maintain a veneer of "balance"--you do it only because you have an agenda.

It used to be that the role of the news industry was to provide an honest and well-researched perspective on the story at hand, and present the actual facts with the measure of attention that they deserve. This only ever worked if the organization did so without regard to ratings (why TV News, if it was successful, was only ever a major revenue loss for the networks. They operated on "good faith" and the Networks really only tolerated them because their mission was accepted as the only real public service that the TV medium was distributing). This can no longer be the case when the mission of your news organization is only to distribute the news, and in a certain way, that it's audience wants to hear. This is perversion of the medium, and is the single-most important factor in the real distrust we have in media. Fox fans probably don't get it, but even though they are being fed the lies they want to hear, they still understand they are being lied to, and they certainly don't like it. ....but many americans really seem to hate themselves these days. Look at how they voted!

 

[agent00f]

This is not a career advancement, but more like a self initiated demotion. NBC has nowhere near the viewership as where she is leaving. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me, as I can't stand her.

Funny just earlier boomerang was pretending she really left because daytime hours, when it's perfectly evident from his like on this post why she saw the writing on the wall. No great mystery why that sort don't care for people who won't fall in line, esp when it's a woman who can put them in their place.

 

[kage69]

And we're all used to you spewing insults and spouting off bull shit like you just did.

If commenting on the quality of your posts insults you, tough shit. Maybe you should try to post more informed positions?

The history of sexual harassment at Fox is far from bullshit, and the topic of this thread was subjected to it as were dozens of other women. Sorry this is all news to you, but it's entirely within your power to change that.

 

[hal2kilo]

If commenting on the quality of your posts insults you, tough shit. Maybe you should try to post more informed positions?

The history of sexual harassment at Fox is far from bullshit, and the topic of this thread was subjected to it as were dozens of other women. Sorry this is all news to you, but it's entirely within your power to change that.

That would destroy his bubble. Can't have that.

 

[kage69]

That would destroy his bubble. Can't have that.

You're probably right, but part of me believes that sometimes a good poke is all that is needed to start a positive trend.

Maybe now he's intellectually curious about just how many women have come forward about harassment at Fox. He might review what had been presented at trials by plaintiffs, possibly even contemplate all those millions in settlements! Who knows? If I've assisted, in any way or by any measure, something that helps differentiate him from the boomerangs and the buckshits, well I guess I'm ok with it.

If not, all I've done is point out the obvious so apologists and shills can flail away. Whatever.

 

[MrSquished]

reports say she turned down $100 million for four years from Fox, but chose to go to NBC for a better life/work balance time-wise

 

[Sonikku]

100 mil? What in blazes makes a person worth that much to do a day show? @_@

 

[Svnla]

Darn, that's a lot of money, even with ATOT make believe world rich standard.

 

[zinfamous]

Darn, that's a lot of money, even with ATOT make believe world rich standard.

that, and she doesn't have to get smashed in the head by a 250lb lineman on a weekly basis to earn it. score!

 

[openwheel]

Now only retards are left at Foxnews.

 

[Laststop311]

i find it fascinating that there is a man that actually married her despite the level of idiocy that is megyn kelly. I mean look how she spells megyn that is a red flag right there. I guess its true women only have to be pretty to be successful. They can be completely and utterly mentally challenged (megyn) and do well as long as they look good.

Hey megyn learn how to spell Megan correctly and maybe we can try to start taking you serious.

 

[trenchfoot]

Good move for Megyn what with getting out from under those control freaks over at FOX.

That being said, I'm sure Megyn learned a thing or two about Melissa Harris-Perry's dust-up with network management.

 

[zinfamous]

i find it fascinating that there is a man that actually married her despite the level of idiocy that is megyn kelly. I mean look how she spells megyn that is a red flag right there. I guess its true women only have to be pretty to be successful. They can be completely and utterly mentally challenged (megyn) and do well as long as they look good.

Hey megyn learn how to spell Megan correctly and maybe we can try to start taking you serious.

this is basically an overripe fig.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I had to look up who Megyn Kelly is. What do I win?

 

[Blackjack200]

this is basically an overripe fig.

Last stop. 47 posts in f-aaaahhhh-v years.

 

[fleshconsumed]

i find it fascinating that there is a man that actually married her despite the level of idiocy that is megyn kelly. I mean look how she spells megyn that is a red flag right there. I guess its true women only have to be pretty to be successful. They can be completely and utterly mentally challenged (megyn) and do well as long as they look good.

Hey megyn learn how to spell Megan correctly and maybe we can try to start taking you serious.

Who knows, maybe her real life personality and opinions are completely different than her TV ones. I was actually quite surprised how hard she hit Donald and anyone who dared to defend him. Remember this interview?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGy5wpY3kMI&t=4m10s

It's hard to speculate about people I don't personally know, but if I were, I think Kelly was getting tired of the republican/fox network bs. Sounds like she had a shitty work life balance, shitty work environment period (sexual allegations against Ailes), and once she saw the republican party swallow down Trump pill and even turn on her she decided to bail. I think she's smarter than people give her credit for. It's quite possible in addition to the shitty work environment she sees the eventual Republican-Trump train wreck coming, and she's getting off the ship to avoid collateral damage.

 

[Zaap]

100 mil? What in blazes makes a person worth that much to do a day show? @_@

The fact that the person writing the check knows that's chump change compared to what they plan to make from pushing higher ratings on advertisers.

The entertainment industry generates boat loads of money... startling never before revealed shocking facts at 11! Stay tuned...

 

[kinev]

Hmm, nobody bitching about her compensation yet. I mean at some point hasn't she made enough?

It's no wonder you hate liberals so much. The things you actually think they believe are insane.

Ooops...