Faux News announced its new primetime line-up. Head to head: Rachel Maddow vs. Megyn Kelly.
Megyn Kelly will be up against Rachel Maddow in primeime
|by Anonymous||reply 173||10/13/2014|
Okay, okay..."primetime." Now we can get past the typo and address issue at hand.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||09/17/2013|
The appeal is to entirely different demographics. Kelly will appeal to the old and homebound so her ratings will always be higher. Will she be a lead in to O'Lielly?
|by Anonymous||reply 2||09/17/2013|
"Kelly will appeal to the old and homebound so her ratings will always be higher."
We want to beat you with our canes. Kowtow to Maddow!
|by Anonymous||reply 3||09/17/2013|
Apples to oranges. Different viewer entirely.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||09/17/2013|
[quote] Apples to oranges. Different viewer entirely.
It will be rural/suburban viewers (Kelly) vs. urban/downtown viewers (Maddow)
Which group watches more TV?
|by Anonymous||reply 5||09/17/2013|
O'Reilly will be Kelly's lead-in. She'll inherit a large portion of his audience.
But Rachel is smarter. She'll be fine.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||09/17/2013|
Megyn may get more viewers, but it really wont make a difference because Fox viewers are considerably older and occupy a demographic advertisers dont consider attractive.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||09/17/2013|
Another blonde to bash Obama.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||09/17/2013|
Let's see.... Should we watch the hot chick or the dyke? Decisions decisions...
[bold]Megyn Kelly’s Primetime Debut Wins In Total Viewers[/bold]
Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File” handily beat rivals in total viewers, an auspicious start for the network’s first new primetime program in more than a decade, as well as its host, Megyn Kelly.
According to early Nielsen totals, Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File” lured nearly 2.1 million viewers between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m,. Monday evening, compared with 97,466 for MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show” and 529,946 for CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight.” The figures could change slightly.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||10/08/2013|
[quote]Fox viewers are considerably older and occupy a demographic advertisers dont consider attractive.
2.1 million vs. 97,466!
Infomercials have more viewers than Maddow.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||10/08/2013|
Rachel Maddow is only pulling in 100,000 viewers?
What happened, bitches?
|by Anonymous||reply 11||10/08/2013|
R9 made a...ahem...typo, r11.
Also, RM got a larger young audience than Barbie Newsanchor.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||10/08/2013|
It's obviously a typo.
And of course Megyn Kelly would win in the ratings. No one ever doubted she would. FOX gets high total viewership. As R12 noted, Maddow did manage to win in the 25-54 demo.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||10/08/2013|
Well, when young people start voting consistently, then that will be nice. Until then, they will be too busy starting their locally sourced vegan co-op.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||10/08/2013|
Rachel beat her ass in the important key 25-54 demo that advertisers care about. Go Rachel! The average age for Fox viewers is 70, lol. If they turned off all the TVs in nursing homes, Fox would lose over half of their viewers.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||10/08/2013|
Megyn's husband, Doug Brunt, is a major hunk.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||10/08/2013|
It's all about the upperwardly mobile, yuppie-liberal demographic.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||10/08/2013|
r15 but not by much.
[quote]MSNBC’s “Maddow” secured more viewers among audiences between 25 and 54 years of age, the demographic most coveted by advertisers in news programming. “Maddow” attracted 298,543 in the demo, according to Nielsen, compared with 289,264 for “Kelly”
Less than 10k, and Megyn could pick up more in the coming weeks.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||10/08/2013|
Megyn is way hotter!
|by Anonymous||reply 19||10/08/2013|
no she isn't, R19
Rachel gets the smart viewers
|by Anonymous||reply 20||10/08/2013|
Hey, speaking of fox's new lineup, anyone seen Shep's show today at 3pm? I missed it but was watching cavuto (yeah, my work place puts him on) and shep was on for a few min talking reporting about remarks relating to the govt. shutdown and he looked "refresh"....what did you guys think?
|by Anonymous||reply 21||10/08/2013|
The Fox audience doesn't even watch - they just turn the TV on in the morning and let it run all day. I know this from personal experience with some of Fox's viewers.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||10/09/2013|
R20, looks like lily Tomlin
|by Anonymous||reply 23||10/09/2013|
Megyn and her husband are hot. Megyn is also pro-gay.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||10/09/2013|
r24, she went nuts when the Obama Administration said they wouldn't defend DOMA. The first thing she did was get Maggie Gallagher on the air and lament. Don't forget her antics election night 2012 trying to figure out some way to make Mitt Romney POTUS. She's blames victims, hates feminists and women's rights. She's a hardlined capitalist to the point of Fascist. She screams communism every chance she gets. She wants no special rights for women in the workforce. This is a cunt who took maternity leave. Jon Stewart had her on and annihilated her over it. She is a retched human being who needs to die in a grease fire.
So don't try to make her happen. You support Megyn, you support Coulter, Malkin, and Ingraham.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||10/09/2013|
F&F 26 & 27.
this is a gay board, homophobe. GTFO
|by Anonymous||reply 28||10/09/2013|
At President Obama's 2012 inauguration, after all the oaths, songs, and speeches, as the family exits the dias, and President Obama is in the doorway, half in shadow, he pauses and turns to look back out over the masses:
Megyn Kelly in voice-over "What's he doing?Looking for Beyoncé?"
I actually felt pity for a cunt right then. It passed.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||10/09/2013|
ha...good one, r29.
She has no sense of humanity.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||10/09/2013|
Now right wing geriatrics will have something to jerk off to before falling asleep.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||10/09/2013|
Young straight guys and gals prefer Megyn
|by Anonymous||reply 32||10/09/2013|
so why did megyn lose the young audience on her debut, 32?
I know why.
Because you are ****mistaken****.
young people prefer smart, straight talkers...even if they're gay. everyone on Faux is bs...the kids know that from watching SNL, Jon Stewart, the Colbert Report, etc.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||10/09/2013|
I liked Maddow for a while, primarily during major election cycles.
However, sometimes it is like watching a child prodigy INSIST you listen to how great they play the piano. SUCH enthusiasm. Calm down, Rachel, we get it. You're smart, and your tone of voice insists that we see that.
Frankly, I've gotten tired of all three news networks, not that I ever watched Fox. I pull news from a few different online sources and get on with my life.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||10/09/2013|
r29 that comment of hers could have been taken from Datalounge, she sounds like one of us.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||10/09/2013|
Perhaps if Ms. Maddow started dressing like a Fox bimbo and changed her name to Rachyl...
|by Anonymous||reply 36||10/09/2013|
[quote]Young straight guys and gals prefer Megyn
No one young watches Fox Noise, hon.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||10/09/2013|
[quote]Maddow is too damn ugly to look at.
Oh yeah, you're so right. Just hideous.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||10/09/2013|
If you check tvbythenumbers, you will see that once in a blue moon MSNBC will beat Fox in a demographic for a particular time slot, but that's it.
Fox usually wins viewers and both demographic categories. If you don't believe me, than check that website for a week's worth of numbers.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||10/09/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 43||10/09/2013|
Megyn just lost to Rachel in the ratings. Her collapse is complete. Fox is already coming up with excuses for it.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||10/09/2013|
r44, don't believe it
|by Anonymous||reply 45||10/09/2013|
Rachel can spell her name.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||10/09/2013|
We're moving our commercials over to Rachel's show.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||10/09/2013|
"Megyn Kelly Draws a Large, Older Audience on Fox News Show"
On her first night as a central player in the Fox News prime-time lineup, Megyn Kelly scored impressively with the network’s core audience of older viewers, but did not register much improvement in attracting additional viewers in the category that makes money for cable news networks, viewers between the ages of 25 and 54.
In fact, among that group, Ms. Kelly finished second to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC in the 9 p.m. hour. That qualifies as something of a surprise given the amount of publicity Fox News put behind the introduction of Ms. Kelly and her status as the fastest rising star at the network.
A possible reason for those results, executives at both Fox News and MSNBC suggested on Monday, was that the issues of the day, the shutdown of the government and the threat of default if the government’s debt ceiling is not raised, seem to be drawing MSNBC’s core left-of-center audience to that channel.
Over all, MSNBC had an unusually robust night, led at 7 p.m. by a strong performance by Chris Matthews on his “Hardball” show, which averaged 377,000 viewers in the 25-to-54 group. That was the best result on cable news all night, other than that of the perennially dominant Bill O’Reilly on Fox News, whose 8 p.m. show averaged an audience of 415,000 among those viewers. And at 10 p.m., where Sean Hannity has been relocated on Fox News, Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC managed to tie Mr. Hannity in that age category (important because news advertisers pay for viewers in that group) with 251,000 each.
Certainly, the attention surrounding Ms. Kelly’s first prime-time program paid off in terms of adding viewers, though they happened to be largely over 55. Ms. Kelly averaged a total audience of 2.1 million viewers for her debut edition of “The Kelly File” from 9 to 10 p.m. That was an increase of 32 percent from the audience that Mr. Hannity had been averaging for the previous four Mondays in that hour.
But of that 2.1 million viewership only 289,000 were 25 to 54 years old, roughly 14 percent of her total audience. Ms. Maddow, MSNBC’s biggest name, beat Ms. Kelly on Monday with an audience of 299,000 among the younger viewers, though she was far behind in total viewers with 997,000. That meant Ms. Maddow averaged about 30 percent of her audience in the age group that makes money for her network.
Lost in all the numbers was a woeful performance from CNN, which apparently suffered again for its attempts at equivalence in its coverage of the shutdown. At 9 p.m., for example, Piers Morgan pulled in only 530,000 viewers, half of Ms. Maddow’s audience and just a quarter of Ms. Kelly’s. Mr. Morgan averaged 145,000 in the 25-to-54 group.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||10/09/2013|
It's great news that Lawrence O'Donnell is tying Sean Hannity in the key 25-54 demo.
I'm shocked that Chris Matthews gets almost 100,000 more viewers than Maddow in the key youth demo. Matthews' show is doing really well.
Overall, MSNBC beats both Fox and CNN in the important demos.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||10/09/2013|
Tonight, Megyn is saying the Obama administration hates the Vets because they closed down the memorial.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||10/09/2013|
Who did Kelly have on last night? Just one night after getting beat by Rachel, Kelly had a 330K advantage over Rachel last night in the demo, defeating even lead-in O'Reilly by 7%.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||10/09/2013|
For all the gays, Rachel definitely has the larger penis......
|by Anonymous||reply 52||10/09/2013|
Kelly will win!
|by Anonymous||reply 53||10/10/2013|
Kelly did even better on Tuesday, Oct 8.
More than doubled Maddow's viewers and won both demographic categories. In fact, Fox won viewers and demographics in every time slot.... which is what they usually do.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||10/10/2013|
Can the Megyn Kelly Freeper fuck GTFO!
|by Anonymous||reply 55||10/10/2013|
Kelly is WAY hotter and feminine
|by Anonymous||reply 56||10/10/2013|
Seriously, as if we care? Who gives a fuck about Fox News? Everyone knows that dumbass channel gets the highest ratings in cable news.
Does that make you feel better? No one here gives a shit about Megyn Kelly.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||10/10/2013|
I try not to make fun of people's names, but Megyn's is beyond stupid.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||10/10/2013|
And Megyn is straight, r56.
I finally watched her show last night and it's just a kinder, gentler version of Hannity.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||10/10/2013|
[all posts by racist flame bait troll removed, ISP notified with full text of all posts.]
|by Anonymous||reply 60||10/10/2013|
Damn, Rachel got her ass kicked on Tuesday....
Kelly got almost 3 times as many viewers.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||10/10/2013|
Megyn is beatin Rachel in the 25-44 demo, deadline had that yesterday. She's huge in that demo against Rachel.
Why can't there be room for all? Different opinions, and Megyn is pro-LGBTQ
|by Anonymous||reply 62||10/10/2013|
On Monday, when Rachel won the 25-54 demo category(by a slight margin), it was... Yay, look at Maddow!!
Now on Tuesday it's.... Who Cares!
|by Anonymous||reply 63||10/10/2013|
Does Datalounge have a Megyn Kelly troll?
|by Anonymous||reply 64||10/10/2013|
r59, I love straight girls!! Give me one over butches any day
|by Anonymous||reply 65||10/10/2013|
Rachel is a scrappy little fellow, but he just doesn't have it in him to compete against Megyn. She rocks!!
|by Anonymous||reply 66||10/10/2013|
Rachel needs smokey eyes.
She looks much better with heavy eye makeup.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||10/10/2013|
This is the reason Fox hires gorgeous women. Rachel can be ok but she's droll and rather uninteresting. Megyn is kind of sparky.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||10/10/2013|
..... and Maddow got stomped on Wed and Thurs.
Kelly had more than twice Maddow's viewers and also won both demographic groups.
Friday's numbers weren't in yet.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||10/14/2013|
IF Maddow changed her clothes once a month, she might attract a couple more viewers.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||10/14/2013|
Maddow must stink to high heaven, but I guess her beast of a gf doesn't mind it.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||10/14/2013|
Damn, Megyn looks awful.
Did she get plastic surgery on her chin, or what?
That thing looks like it could chop down trees.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||10/14/2013|
I really think the "stinky" & other comments are unnecessary. Why can't we have both talented women? Megyn is pro-choice & pro-LGBTQ & has gone to fundraisers for LGBTQ.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||10/14/2013|
Do butch lesbians even shower?
|by Anonymous||reply 74||10/14/2013|
well, R73, what viewer wants to look at the same outfit day in and day out?
|by Anonymous||reply 75||10/14/2013|
R73 Maybe his outfit is a type of protest to the management of MSNBC because he cannot wear flannel.
That Rachel may not have any real discernible style, but he sure does have big cajones!
|by Anonymous||reply 76||10/14/2013|
Horrible stench of trolls and freepers all over this thread.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||10/14/2013|
While I gladly cop to being a first class Rachel stan, I am also very much the realist. For some reason straight men absolutely LOVE Megyn. Even the liberal Howard Stern stated that she is the hottest woman in news reading. She is a bit less dimwitted than the average Fox bimbo talking head, and the fact that she balances her work with being a mother of 4(I think) is a source of admiration from other women. But anyone with a brain will continue to favor the deliciously wonderful Rachel. While never having even kissed a girl, I would turn in my straight card tomorrow for a shot at the dream girl. Her brain is so fucking sexy it's ridiculous.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||10/14/2013|
Howard goes back & forth on his liberalism all the time r78
|by Anonymous||reply 79||10/14/2013|
Rachel would love to fuck Megyn with her strap on!
|by Anonymous||reply 80||10/14/2013|
R80 He doesn't have a strap on....it's big, thick and real!
|by Anonymous||reply 81||10/14/2013|
This thread is full of mental freepers
|by Anonymous||reply 82||10/14/2013|
Megyn is the epitome of femininity
|by Anonymous||reply 83||10/15/2013|
Holy Shit.... MSNBC's desperation is showing....
Nielsen has conducted an investigation into the ratings of Megyn Kelly's new show follwing grousing by MSNBC chief Phil Griffin.
The investigation has revealed that the numbers are accurate. Megyn Kelly did crush Rachel Maddow.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||10/15/2013|
"femme les" is a freeper troll who wrote
"Obamacare is imploding already" in another thread (not writing his/her 'femme les' name then)
|by Anonymous||reply 85||10/15/2013|
TDN's link to the investigation & found that MK's ratings are in fact real.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||10/15/2013|
R84/R88 is a freeper, too
|by Anonymous||reply 89||10/15/2013|
If meg is doing well, good for her.
I still prefer Rachel.
I usually prefer indies over blockbusters.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||10/15/2013|
Nothing scarier than a misogynist lesbian.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||10/15/2013|
if she is indeed lesbian, or female, R91
|by Anonymous||reply 92||10/15/2013|
well, if a paragon of journalistic virtue like the new york daily news says that cunt's ratings did indeed double, than it must be FACT.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||10/15/2013|
Delete this thread and delete 90% of the Freeper shills here.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||10/15/2013|
R92, my educated guess is it is an OLD man.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||10/15/2013|
I agree, R97, it's an old man with tinymeat.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||10/15/2013|
Maddow deserved a little comeuppance because she's entirely too full of herself.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||10/15/2013|
Clearly, r99 has never watched Rachel Maddow's program and has *definitely* never watched Megan Kelly's.
Kelly is the definition of "up her own ass" and there's no mistaking it.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||10/15/2013|
begone freeper r101- your kind is not welcome here.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||10/15/2013|
well, r103, since you think thomas roberts is a drama queen, and rachel maddow is full of herself, so you are either a homophobe or a freeper, most likely both.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||10/15/2013|
TBF - Thomas Roberts IS a dramaqueen & RM is full of herself. But I do like RM - & am not the person you're screaming at.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||10/15/2013|
go away, tired freeper hetereosexual troll r106. we do not want you here. be gone.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||10/16/2013|
Maddow took last night off, probably because she's working on a major story.
Me thinks that will never be the case for Princess Esquire.
Maddow's a journalist who does her job well.
Princess is eye candy for dumb old people.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||10/16/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 110||10/16/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 111||10/16/2013|
Damn, the end of this thread is lighting up like a Christmas tree.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||10/16/2013|
It is not a mandatory requirement that all gay women like Rachel Maddow.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||10/16/2013|
She does not represent you and your friends because she's smarter than the lot of you put together.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||10/16/2013|
or your Republican Party, Mr."femme les" (also at R106 and probably some others on this page with a different keyboard)
|by Anonymous||reply 122||10/16/2013|
That's for sure, R121. She is a Miley Cyrus type.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||10/16/2013|
We have a straight freeper posing as a "femme les" astroturfing on a thread about his obsession Megyn Kelly. She must have loads of fanboys out there. I wonder how many of them tune in only to beat off.
|by Anonymous||reply 125||10/16/2013|
Sadly you'll never deposit your load in Miss Megyn, R127. How on earth do 14 year old boys find Datalounge?
|by Anonymous||reply 128||10/16/2013|
If it is, I'm turning in my gay card.
|by Anonymous||reply 130||10/16/2013|
I've never watched Megyn Kelly, but Maddow is brilliant. She's thoughtful, coherent and clear, so that even morons can get it when she thinks it's important enough to discuss. She also apologizes clearly when she's wrong, so she has ethics, too.
|by Anonymous||reply 132||10/16/2013|
R132 Why do you think of yourself as a moron?
|by Anonymous||reply 133||10/17/2013|
Only a retard wears the same outfit night after night.
Maddow's stank comes straight throught the TV.
|by Anonymous||reply 134||10/17/2013|
In all seriousness, does she only wear that 1 grey outfit?
If so, then she should expect ridicule.
|by Anonymous||reply 135||10/18/2013|
Maddow's still getting her ass kicked in viewers and both demographics.
Monday October 28th...
25-54 demographic -
35-64 demographic -
|by Anonymous||reply 136||10/29/2013|
So, the insufferable Piers Morgan is just about even with Rachel in the 25-54 demo. OMG!
|by Anonymous||reply 137||10/29/2013|
Piers is better looking.
That explains it.
|by Anonymous||reply 138||10/29/2013|
I've noticed MSNBC is now trying to switch up Maddow's outfit every so often. Bet they really have to twist her arm in order to do it.
|by Anonymous||reply 139||10/29/2013|
This week, Rachel Maddow exposed Rand Paul's plagiarism.
What exclusvies has Megyn Kelly broken...ever?
Rachel is for people who are already having hot sex; Megyn is for lonely old men who take little blue pills.
Rachel is for people who have intellectual curiosity; Megyn is a pretty lady who reads news stories.
Rachel's guests seem to enjoy being interveiwed by her, even if they are republicans. Her interview with Sandra Day O'Connor was historical.
Megyn's guests yell, whine and point fingers a lot.
Comparing the two is apples v. oranges. I think both are smart & attractive. But really I don't care what a journalist looks like. I'm not shallow...most progressives aren't.
Republicans are as superficial as they are exclusive. And denying scientific evidence, such as climate change & evolution, just makes them look STUPID.
|by Anonymous||reply 140||10/31/2013|
[quote]Now you're reaching. Come on, Rand Paul is plagiarizing Wikipedia? Yawwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnn.
Yeah, fuck the national media that has picked up on it, not to mention late-night comedians making fun of him, oh, and him having to put out statements about it.
|by Anonymous||reply 142||10/31/2013|
[quote]Maddow's still getting her ass kicked in viewers and both demographics.
By dumb viewers. Viewers that are homophobic, racist, and religious. Who cares?!
|by Anonymous||reply 143||10/31/2013|
"Why Megyn Kelly Is More Dangerous Than Bill O'Reilly"
Ask Fox News' Megyn Kelly if she has an opinion and she'll tell you no, she plays it straight. "If you watch O'Reilly, you hear a lot about what Bill O'Reilly thinks," Kelly told the Associated Press regarding her new primetime Fox program, debuting tonight. "Sean Hannity, same thing. But you're not going to hear what I think." This is true to the extent that Megyn Kelly, the longtime star of Fox News' daytime block of "straight news" programming, is not a fulminating champion of "traditional" values like O'Reilly. Nor is she a myna bird for the Republican National Committee like Hannity. In that way she represents a significant departure from the network's last decade of primetime programming -- but toward a direction that actually makes Fox even more dangerous.
Kelly does not breathe fire like her primetime cohorts, but she can be every bit as partisan and misleading. The recent comments from Kelly and from the network are part of a deliberate effort to set her apart from the partisanship and moralism of Hannity and O'Reilly and cast her as a voice of factual authority. Anyone who's watched enough of Kelly's news programming knows how insidious a message that is. And, unfortunately, it appears to be working.
People who think this is unfair to Kelly will likely bring up her election night dismantling of Karl Rove as he sputtered objections to the network calling Ohio for President Obama. Or her rebukes of Erick Erickson and Lou Dobbs for their antiquated views of women in the workplace. And Kelly was absolutely right to take on her colleagues in those instances. It should be noted, though, that these moments are made possible by the fact that the network won't actually punish her colleagues for unguarded crassness or factually dubious partisanship. Fox News will keep paying Rove for being embarrassingly wrong and Erickson for being a sexist oaf, which means Kelly won't lack for opportunities to make headlines by imposing some basic decency on her coworkers.
But for each of those moments, there is an example of Megyn Kelly wielding her journalistic authority to prop up transparent nonsense as "news." Remember the ridiculous New Black Panther story? One of the big reasons you know about it is because Kelly made the story her own, elevating the profile of the extremist fringe group and devoting hours of airtime to the absurd allegation that it was under the protection of Obama Justice Department because that conspiracy theory comported with conservative resentment of the administration (and because it made for entertaining television). Her facts were often wrong, and the story ended up going nowhere because there was nothing to it.
And then there's Benghazi. Shortly after the terrorist attack in Benghazi last September, Kelly put together a segment on conservative outrage over an Obama campaign poster that featured an abstract rendering of the American flag, which Kelly (using the patented "some are saying" dodge) said resembled blood smeared on the walls of the diplomatic compound.
"If you go online," Kelly observed, "a lot of folks have said that the smearing of the red stripes is eerily reminiscent of a terrible picture we've all seen over the past week and a half, which is of bloody handprints outside of our Libyan consulate." That's an absurd thing to say. It would be an absurd argument for someone like Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly to make on their opinion programs. Kelly made that argument, sourced to "folks" on the internet, on her news program. There was a point she wanted to make, but she made it more subtly than a typical partisan host would. (For another example, here's Kelly deploying the "legitimate questions" dodge while wondering aloud whether Hillary Clinton was using a concussion as an "excuse" to get out of testifying about Benghazi.)
But this isn't what people bring up when they talk about Megyn Kelly. They bring up her confrontation with Rove, or they quote network executives praising her fairness, or they quote Kelly herself saying she won't be a female Bill O'Reilly. That may be true, but not being Bill O'Reilly does not excuse some aggressively bad journalism.
|by Anonymous||reply 145||10/31/2013|
"Megyn Kelly Offers Blatant Falsehoods About DOMA"
On Fox News' America Live, Megyn Kelly criticized President Obama's decision to no longer defend the constitutionality of a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as radical and and possibly unconstitutional. Kelly hosted the National Organization of Marriage's Maggie Gallagher and conservative commentator Monica Crowley to advance numerous demonstrable falsehoods about the DOJ's decision.
Kelly Falsely Accuses Obama Of Refusing To Enforce DOMA
KELLY: The Obama Administration has just announced that it will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. They call it DOMA. President Clinton signed this thing. It allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex unions from other states. It has been in place for more than a decade and the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has just announced that President Obama does not believe the law is constitutional and neither does Eric Holder. They're no longer going to be enforcing this federal law that's on the books, passed by Congress, signed by President Clinton and still very much a law. [America Live, 2/23/11] FACT: Both Obama And The DoJ Have Pledged To Continue Enforcing DOMA
Holder Emphasized Commitment To Enforcing The Law, Just Not Defending Its Constitutionality. Holder's statement acknowledged that, although the administration will not provide a legal defense of Section 3 in court, the president will continue to enforce the law:
After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute inWindsor and Pedersen, now pending in the Southern District of New York and the District of Connecticut. I concur in this determination.
Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive's obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law's constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised. [Department of Justice, Letter to Congressional Leadership, 2/23/2011, emphasis added] Obama Instructed Holder To Continue Enforcing Section 3. Jake Tapper, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent, noted that, until Congress repeals Section 3 or a court renders the section unconstitutional, DOMA will continue to be enforced:
President Obama told Holder that the Executive Branch of the government will continue to enforce Section 3 "consistent with the Executive's obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law's constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised." [ABC News, 2/23/11] Holder Cited Legal Basis For Choosing Not To Defend Unconstitutional Legislation In Court. In his letter to Congressional leadership, Attorney General Holder clearly cites the basis upon which the government can choose not to defend legislation when it is unconstitutional or no "reasonable" argument exists to defend it:
As you know, the Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense, a practice that accords the respect appropriately due to a coequal branch of government. However, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because the Department does not consider every plausible argument to be a "reasonable" one. "[D]ifferent cases can raise very different issues with respect to statutes of doubtful constitutional validity," and thus there are "a variety of factors that bear on whether the Department will defend the constitutionality of a statute." Letter to Hon. Orrin G. Hatch from Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois at 7 (Mar. 22, 1996). This is the rare case where the proper course is to forgo the defense of this statute. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute "in cases in which it is manifest that the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional," as is the case here. Seth P. Waxman, Defending Congress, 79 N.C. L.Rev. 1073, 1083 (2001). [Department of Justice, Letter to Congressional Leadership, 2/23/2011] Kelly, Gallagher, And Crowley Accuse The Administration Of Violating The Constitution
Kelly Suggests DOJ Isn't Doing Their "Job." During the segment with Gallagher, Kelly commented: "The Department of Justice, however you feel about this law, whether you like this law or you don't like this law, the Department of Justice's job is to defend the laws that are on the books. And it is now saying that pursuant to President Obama's feeling that this law is unconstitutional, and Eric Holder says he agrees, they're just not going to do it. So what happens now?" [America Live, 2/23/11]
Gallagher Accuses Administration Of Avoiding Constitution. Gallagher commented: "This is an end run really around our normal constitutional processes and we're going to be seeing a lot more of this by President Obama now that he faces a Republican dominated Congress." [America Live, 2/23/11]
Monica Crowley: "To Me That Is A Form Of Dictatorship. That Is Mubarak Obama." In a later segment, Monica Crowley commented: "We are a nation of laws, not of men. We are governed by the rule of law. And what the Constitution says is that the President of the United States doesn't get to decide which laws he likes and which ones he's gonna enforce. He is the Chief Executive. The law is on the books, the Defense of Marriage Act. It is his responsibility under the Constitution to enforce that law. Not just to decide 'well I don't like that law so I'm not going to enforce it.' To me that is a form of dictatorship. That is Mubarak Obama. You can't just pick and choose which law you're gonna enforce when you're president of the United States or the Attorney General." [America Live, 2/23/11]
FACT: The President May Constitutionally Choose Not To Enforce DOMA
A 1994 DoJ Memorandum Clarifies The President's Authority To Not Execute Unconstitutional Statutes. A 1994 memorandum issued by the Department of Justice cites numerous Supreme Court decisions establishing the legal basis for the Executive Branch to not enforce a statute they view as unconstitutional:
I have reflected further on the difficult questions surrounding a President's decision to decline to execute statutory provisions that the President believes are unconstitutional, and I have a few thoughts to share with you. Let me start with a general proposition that I believe to be uncontroversial: there are circumstances in which the President may appropriately decline to enforce a statute that he views as unconstitutional.
First, there is significant judicial approval of this proposition. Most notable is the Court's decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There the Court sustained the President's view that the statute at issue was unconstitutional without any member of the Court suggesting that the President had acted improperly in refusing to abide by the statute. More recently, in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." Id. at 906 (Scalia, J., concurring); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (recognizing existence of President's authority to act contrary to a statutory command).
Second, consistent and substantial executive practice also confirms this general proposition. Opinions dating to at least 1860 assert the President's authority to decline to effectuate enactments that the President views as unconstitutional. See, e.g., Memorial of Captain Meigs, 9 Op. Att'y Gen. 462, 469-70 (1860) (asserting that the President need not enforce a statute purporting to appoint an officer); see also annotations of attached Attorney General and Office of Legal Counsel opinions. Moreover, as we discuss more fully below, numerous Presidents have provided advance notice of their intention not to enforce specific statutory requirements that they have viewed as unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has implicitly endorsed this practice. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 942 n.13 (1983) (noting that Presidents often sign legislation containing constitutionally objectionable provisions and indicate that they will not comply with those provisions).
While the general proposition that in some situations the President may decline to enforce unconstitutional statutes is unassailable, it does not offer sufficient guidance as to the appropriate course in specific circumstances. [Department of Justice Memorandum, 11/2/94] Legal Expert Saikrishna Prakash: The Constitution Actually Requires Presidents To Not Enforce Unconstitutional Laws. University of Virginia Law School Professor Saikrishna Prakash explained in an article published in the Georgetown Law Journal that the president is actually constitutionally obligated to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws:
The critics are correct in supposing that the President lacks a discretionary power to disregard unconstitutional statutes; instead, the Constitution is best read asobliging the President to disregard statutes he regards as unconstitutional. First, the Constitution never empowers the President to enforce unconstitutional statutes. He no more has the power to enforce such statutes than he has power to enforce the statutes of Georgia or Germany. Second, the President's duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution requires the President to disregard unconstitutional statutes. When the President enforces a statute he regards as unconstitutional, he violates the Constitution no less than if he were to imprison citizens without hope of trial. Third, the Faithful Execution Clause requires the President to choose the Constitution over unconstitutional laws, in the same way that courts must choose the former over the latter. Consistent with these understandings, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson argued that executives could not enforce unconstitutional laws. Indeed, President Jefferson halted Sedition Act prosecutions on grounds that the Act was unconstitutional. According to Jefferson, his duty to defend the Constitution barred him from executing measures that violated it. [Georgetown Law Journal, June 2008, emphasis added] Prakash: Thomas Jefferson Was The First President To Refuse Enforcement Of An Unconstitutional Statute. Prakash also noted that Thomas Jefferson chose not to enforce the Sedition Act, believing it was unconstitutional:
As a matter of history, Thomas Jefferson was the first President who felt compelled to cease enforcement of a statute he regarded as unconstitutional. Believing that the Sedition Act was unconstitutional, Jefferson ordered his prosecutors to cease all existing Sedition Act prosecutions. Jefferson felt constitutionally obliged to arrest the execution of unconstitutional laws. He alsoconcluded that his Faithful Execution duty did not extend to unconstitutional laws because the latter were null and void. He was confident in his conclusions, believing there was "no weak part in any of these positions or inferences." [Georgetown Law Journal, June 2008] Gallagher Accuses Obama Of Applying "Strict Scrutiny" To Sexual Orientation
Gallagher: Decision Means That "Gay Is Like Black." During the segment, Gallagher also commented: "He not only is refusing to defend the law, he has unilaterally declared that gay is like black, that orientation is now subjected to strict scrutiny. I actually do not recall ever an Attorney General getting in front of the courts in deciding what's a classification subject to strict scrutiny under the law."
FACT: The Government Did Not Recommend Applying "Strict Scrutiny" To Sexual Orientation
Holder Called For The Use Of "Heightened Scrutiny" In His Letter To Congress. The phrase "strict scrutiny" cannot be found in any of the statements released by the Department of Justice about the decision to not defend DOMA. Rather, Holder recommended that some level of "heightened scrutiny" be used when dealing with sexual orientation cases:
The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the appropriate level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation. It has, however, rendered a number of decisions that set forth the criteria that should inform this and any other judgment as to whether heightened scrutiny applies: (1) whether the group in question has suffered a history of discrimination; (2) whether individuals "exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group"; (3) whether the group is a minority or is politically powerless; and (4) whether the characteristics distinguishing the group have little relation to legitimate policy objectives or to an individual's "ability to perform or contribute to society." See Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 602-03 (1987); City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 441-42 (1985). [Department of Justice, Letter to Congressional Leadership, 2/23/2011] The Court Is Unlikely To Apply Strict Scrutiny When Dealing With Sexual Orientation Cases. As Ari Ezra Waldman, Teaching Fellow at the California Western School of Law in San Diego, points out, legal precedent seems to indicate that gays are more likely to be found as a "quasi-suspect class":
In this case, heightened scrutiny likely means that a statute must further "an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest." That is a tougher standard to meet than rational basis review, which just requires a statute be rationally connected to a less important interest. I say "likely" because the Administration's press release simply referred to "some level of heightened scrutiny," which could be this intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny. There is some precedent for applying strict scrutiny -- furthering a compelling government interest in a narrowly tailored way -- from some federal courts and state courts. But, I believe intermediate scrutiny is a more likely result, as a number of federal and state courts have found gays to be "quasi-suspect classes."
As a practical matter, this means that if the court adopts heightened scrutiny, it will be harder for DOMA to withstand constitutional scrutiny. [Towleroad, 2/23/11] Kelly Suggests That Obama's Decision Will Force States To Recognize Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriages
Kelly Suggests Texas Will Be Forced to Recognize Massachusetts Marriages. Kelly also commented:
In the meantime, what does this mean as a practical matter? Does it mean that, now that the Obama White House and the Attorney general have said they believe the law is unconstitutional, does it have any legal effect, does it now mean that you can get married in a same-sex union in Massachusetts you can go down to Texas and force Texas to recognize it? FACT: Section 3 Has Nothing To Do With State Recognition Of Out-Of-State Marriages
Holder Will Only Drop The Defense Of Section 3 Of DOMA. The suits currently challenging DOMA in the courts are specific to Section 3 of the law. Holder's letter clarifies that the government only finds Section 3 to be unconstitutional:
After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), 1 U.S.C. § 7, i as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D, I am writing to advise you of the Executive Branch's determination and to inform you of the steps the Department will take in two pending DOMA cases to implement that determination. [Department of Justice, Letter to Congressional Leadership, 2/23/2011] Section 3 Defined "Marriage" And "Spouse" For Federal Purposes. Section 3 of DOMA clearly deals with the definition of "marriage" and Spouse" for federal purposes:
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
'Sec. 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'
'In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means
only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,
and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is
a husband or a wife.' [Defense of Marriage Act] State Recognition Of Other State Marriages Is Mentioned In Section 2. Section 2 of DOMA, which the administration did not stop defending, absolves states from the requirement to honor same-sex marriages from other states:
SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding after section 1738B the following:
'Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect
'No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe
respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship.' [Defense of Marriage Act]
|by Anonymous||reply 146||10/31/2013|
Fox News' Megyn Kelly returns from maternity leave with a more liberal perspective on mandated benefits and entitlement programs. (04:53)
|by Anonymous||reply 147||10/31/2013|
How did you fit so much into one post R146. My mouse wheel is exhausted.
|by Anonymous||reply 148||10/31/2013|
How many exclusive stories has Megyn broken? Please list.
Rachel's reporting on Rand Paul actually makes a difference in the world.
|by Anonymous||reply 149||11/01/2013|
The Megyn Kelly freeper troll is full of shit.
Six minutes into the show and it's great?
|by Anonymous||reply 151||11/04/2013|
why won't rachel have that hairy mole on her neck lanced off? getting rid of that nasty thing would easily bring in at least 12 thousand viewers!!
|by Anonymous||reply 153||11/04/2013|
I've never watched Megan, she sounds dreadful.
|by Anonymous||reply 155||11/04/2013|
Ok, so Megyn "breaks" stories about the New Black Panther Party & Benghazi.
Meanwhile, more evidence of Rand Paul's plagiarism has surfaced...because of Rachel's reporting. This may derail his presidential bid!
If you are a cricket, watch Megyn. Because her reporting is as consequential as crickets chirping.
If you want to see history unfold in real time, watch Rachel!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 156||11/05/2013|
Megyn breaks stories about the NBPP & Benghazi.
Rachel breaks stories about congressional plagiarism and voting rights.
Megyn's reporting is of no consequence.
Rachel's changes the course of history.
There is no comparison.
|by Anonymous||reply 157||11/05/2013|
Rachel reported this week that George W. Bush is raising money for a group that converts Jews to Christianity in order to bring about the end times.
Fox viewers will never, ever know about this. If they did, they would only justify it. Or they would flat out deny it.
It's so horribly offensive that GWB removed the content from his website. But yet he is still going.
There really is no comparison between Rachel & Megyn.
Oh...Fox viewers also will never know that Rand Paul hired the "Southern Avenger" to work on his staff.
|by Anonymous||reply 158||11/12/2013|
Rachel Maddow will write a monthly column for The Washington Post, the newspaper announced in a memo on Wednesday.
The Post's Erik Wemple reported that Maddow will write an opinion column once a month according to a six-month deal she has made with the paper. The MSNBC host has written for the newspaper before, and the first of her regular pieces will appear in the newspaper this week, according to a memo to staffers on Wednesday.
See the full text of the note below (h/t Erik Wemple).
We are delighted to announce that Rachel Maddow, host of MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” will be joining The Washington Post’s Opinion section as a monthly columnist. We expect that she will bring to Post readers the strong arguments, sharp wit and thoughtful analysis of political and social issues that have made her show an Emmy Award winner.
Rachel, who has written previously for The Post, is the author of “DRIFT: The Unmooring of American Military Power.” The 2012 book was a national best-seller.
“The Rachel Maddow Show” has been nominated by the Television Critics Association for “Outstanding Achievement in News and Information” four times. Rachel received the 2012 John Steinbeck Award from the Center for Steinbeck Studies at San Jose University. Before becoming an MSNBC political analyst in 2008, she was a host on Air America Radio.
Rachel has a bachelor’s degree in public policy from Stanford University and a doctorate in political science at Oxford University, where she was a Rhodes Scholar. She lives in New York and Massachusetts with her partner, artist Susan Mikula.
Her first column will be published this week.
|by Anonymous||reply 159||12/11/2013|
I agree, r160, that MK is sexy.
But high-information viewers don't watch the News for sexual stimulation.
I guess that's the difference between Faux News viewers and the rest of the world.
For us, news is journalism. For them, news is infotainment.
|by Anonymous||reply 161||12/11/2013|
Maddow posts lowest quarterly rating results EVER.
Somehow I just can't seem to manage a tear.
|by Anonymous||reply 162||10/12/2014|
Grampa watches Megyn's show hoping her dress will fall off.
|by Anonymous||reply 163||10/13/2014|
Catch up R163. Fox is winning the 25-54 demographic, too, and has been for quite some time.
|by Anonymous||reply 164||10/13/2014|
Apparently Maddow attracts the bulldykes and that's about it.
I mean, really, 1 outfit for the entire run of her show?
|by Anonymous||reply 165||10/13/2014|
Megyn's hair extensions are fucking awful!!
You would think she could afford to buy better ones with all of that Fox News cash flowing.
|by Anonymous||reply 166||10/13/2014|
[r163] What on earth does gramps' fondest wishes have to do with numbers?
We can find no romance in you.
|by Anonymous||reply 167||10/13/2014|
I mean [r164]
|by Anonymous||reply 168||10/13/2014|
Freepers gotta Freep. If you haven't noticed, the Democratic Party is about to get its ass handed to it next month. The country has sided with the Right, thus Fox Noise viewing. Also, liberals don't listen to talk radio, panel shows, or buy Right wing rubbish like the Right which buys it in bulk and gives it out for free. Get off Maddow's dick.
|by Anonymous||reply 169||10/13/2014|
R166 watches her. Freep exposed.
|by Anonymous||reply 170||10/13/2014|
R167 is a retard.
|by Anonymous||reply 171||10/13/2014|
[r171]--is new here, and has been clearing cookies like mad across the board.
|by Anonymous||reply 172||10/13/2014|
Maddow is just too ugly to watch...
Her looks, her outfit, her personality.. all butt ugly.
|by Anonymous||reply 173||10/13/2014|