• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Megyn Kelly Fired?

She's not hosting the 9 AM hour anymore and she has lost her agents in the wake of blackface comments. I totally got what she was trying to say, but she painted it in a very questionable way.

Let's just say NBC was not happy with the ratings for the show and was looking for any reason to "re-negotiate".



Megyn Kelly is off her 9 a.m. show, and may not be back

I never liked her, not when she was on Fox, and not when she went to NBC. Don't care really. She's a nitwit, always has been.
 
I totally agree... When I was in grade school in the 70's, there would always be some kids who's costumes involved wearing black face or white face. Nobody took it offensively or called it racist. Wasn't that part of what she was saying?

One year on Halloween, my friend and I who were both big Baltimore Oriole fans, dressed up as the Robinson brothers (a local joke because Frank is black, and Brooks is white). He dressed up as his favorite Oriole Frank Robinson and wore black makeup, and I dressed as one of my favorite players Brooks Robinson, who was white and required no makeup. We wore those costumes at school that day, and when we went trick or treating that night, and nobody took offense to my friend being in black face... and there was at least a dozen black kids in our class, not to mention Mrs. Brown our teacher, who was also black.

.

She was talking about someone dressing as Whitney Houston, imitation is a form of flattery.
 
What I don't get is why Ms. Kelly went down the blackface road...I mean, really. Does she not know, for instance, that a child, no matter his race, who is dressed as Superman if he's wearing the tights, cape and "S" on his chest? Or is that she can only tell if the kid puts on facepaint so his skin looks like that of a white person?

endahrasa3dxot980mjf.png


If a white kid wants to dress as Black Panther, why does the kid need face paint? The character wears a mask.

disney-confirms-black-panther-characters-696x464.jpg

That said, Ms. Kelly, implying she saw nothing offensive about wearing black-/whiteface, indicated that while today one faces recrimination for doing so whereas in her youth one didn't. Well, yes. All sorts of things were, in the days when "American society" referred to what white folks though about a given act, deed or phenomenon, once discounted, ignored, "played off" as "just a joke," etc. are now recognized for what they were and what they remain -- offensive. Blackface in Ms. Kelly's youth was every bit as offensive as it is now; all that's changed is that more -- though apparently too few folks do, and, at the time of her remarks' airing, Ms. Kelly was among them -- people recognize what's offensive about it.

To most educated Americans, performance in blackface is an artifact of long ago, an embarrassing reminder of a distant past in which overt racism was tolerated, as obsolete a form of cultural expression as lawn jockeys or the Uncle Tom in the turn-of-the century Cream of Wheat ads. In fact, though, the consensus that blackface performance is intolerably racist is of relatively recent vintage. Before that, analyses of blackface minstrelsy-even those that conceded its racism -concentrated on the meaning of the performance to the performers and the audience, ignoring or discounting its meaning to, and impact on, the people being portrayed.

The problem, as I see it, is that Ms. Kelly, not some prole who never finished the fifth grade, doesn't understand what's wrong with blackface. Why have an editorialist who's so unlearned, even knowing in advance that she was going to have a Halloween costume discussion segment on her show, that s/he just doesn't see what's amiss, opprobrious, reprehensible about blackface. Ms. Kelly's remark showed a shocking measure of historical and cultural ignorance. And, quite frankly, I damn sure wouldn't give someone so ignorant -- or if it be she wasn't indeed ignorant, but rather unempathetic -- a national a.m. primetime television show all their own and pay them $69M.

Watch the video I posted, and it should clarify things.
 
What I don't get is why Ms. Kelly went down the blackface road...I mean, really. Does she not know, for instance, that a child, no matter his race, who is dressed as Superman if he's wearing the tights, cape and "S" on his chest? Or is that she can only tell if the kid puts on facepaint so his skin looks like that of a white person?

endahrasa3dxot980mjf.png


If a white kid wants to dress as Black Panther, why does the kid need face paint? The character wears a mask.

disney-confirms-black-panther-characters-696x464.jpg

That said, Ms. Kelly, implying she saw nothing offensive about wearing black-/whiteface, indicated that while today one faces recrimination for doing so whereas in her youth one didn't. Well, yes. All sorts of things were, in the days when "American society" referred to what white folks though about a given act, deed or phenomenon, once discounted, ignored, "played off" as "just a joke," etc. are now recognized for what they were and what they remain -- offensive. Blackface in Ms. Kelly's youth was every bit as offensive as it is now; all that's changed is that more -- though apparently too few folks do, and, at the time of her remarks' airing, Ms. Kelly was among them -- people recognize what's offensive about it.

To most educated Americans, performance in blackface is an artifact of long ago, an embarrassing reminder of a distant past in which overt racism was tolerated, as obsolete a form of cultural expression as lawn jockeys or the Uncle Tom in the turn-of-the century Cream of Wheat ads. In fact, though, the consensus that blackface performance is intolerably racist is of relatively recent vintage. Before that, analyses of blackface minstrelsy-even those that conceded its racism -concentrated on the meaning of the performance to the performers and the audience, ignoring or discounting its meaning to, and impact on, the people being portrayed.

The problem, as I see it, is that Ms. Kelly, not some prole who never finished the fifth grade, doesn't understand what's wrong with blackface. Why have an editorialist who's so unlearned, even knowing in advance that she was going to have a Halloween costume discussion segment on her show, that s/he just doesn't see what's amiss, opprobrious, reprehensible about blackface. Ms. Kelly's remark showed a shocking measure of historical and cultural ignorance. And, quite frankly, I damn sure wouldn't give someone so ignorant -- or if it be she wasn't indeed ignorant, but rather unempathetic -- a national a.m. primetime television show all their own and pay them $69M.

In-context, her comments were not nearly as outrageous as they're made out to be. You should watch the segment.
 
She is extremely bright. Such folks, like everyone, miss things and are naive to some stuff. Bright folks differ from dolts in that the former are naive to far less than non-bright folks and they don't often make unforced blunders, yet they do make them. Bright folks also generally, but not universally, availing themselves of their intellectual acumen to subdue their hubris and self-confidence; they do so by at least thinking about and confirming the validity of the stuff they are of a mind to say, or they qualify their remarks to make clear they have a measure of uncertainty about the factual and contextual legitimacy of their remarks.

Ms. Kelly's blackface comment is an instance in which a bright person simply didn't do that. And, well, for her, as with all bright folks and with celebrities (bright or not) of one sort or another, the bar for not making blunders of the sort she did is no different than it is for the rest of us, and she didn't rise to meet it. What distinguishes Ms. Kelly from the rest of us is that having limited visibility, most folks mustn't endure having their blunders and ignorance made manifest to the world.

Ms. Kelly is experiencing nothing the rest of us don't. Surely there's someone whom you know/knew whose remarks showed the person unworthy of your forbearance and you expelled them from your orbit. Well, that's what's happening to Ms. Kelly. It's just that "everyone" is seeing her expulsion whereas few folks are aware of your having removed "so and so" from your good graces.

Too, my remark about ignorance shouldn't be taken as my implying she's generally ignorant, but rather that I think on the matter of blackface, at least at the time, she was, if her apology is to be believed -- "I learned that given the history of blackface being used in awful ways by racists in this country..." -- she was naive about blackface and its implications. Either the woman knew before she made the remark, in which case her saying she learned was untruthful, or she didn't, in which case she was, at the time of making the remark, she was ignorant about the nature of blackface, its symbology and effects.



In light of Ms. Kelly's apology, I wouldn't postulate that she was aiming for "edgy"+something else, but I'm willing to agree it's to some degree plausible she was. If she was going for something of that nature, she'd have been yet another TV personality who attempted to do so and inaptly did so.

FWIW, I found Ms. Kelly's mea culpa acceptable. She apologized by taking full ownership of her naivete and correctly identified blackface's execrability and cited it as etiologically germane to her initial expression's unjust immorality. (She clearly didn't mean "wrong" in a factual way because in the mid-to-late '70s and early '80s, a child of no particular renown costumed in blackface would have drawn little to no outcry. Of such a child, some may even have thought the getup cute or funny.)


I guess this is part of her settlement agreement to pay out her contract.

This apology is not Megan Kelly. Someone else demanded it. She know how to argue why she was right about her comments, but apparently the network is too concerned about placating snowflake liberals, instead of the truth.
 
I guess this is part of her settlement agreement to pay out her contract.

This apology is not Megan Kelly. Someone else demanded it. She know how to argue why she was right about her comments, but apparently the network is too concerned about placating snowflake liberals, instead of the truth.

lol...the snowflake is the one up there in tears. She said it; she got heat, and now she needs to own it.
 
I couldn't imagine living a life where I was "offended" by everything. My mantra is CARE! as in I don't care what people say. I live in the moment and accept what is. It must be such a miserable existence for some people.

Even if you think MK's comments are inappropriate wouldn't it be better to ask for clarification of what she said instead of demanding for her to be removed from her job?

The weak minded have too big of a voice in this country!
 
Last edited:
I couldn't imagine living a life where I was "offended" by everything. My mantra is CARE! as in I don't care what people say. I live in the moment and accept what is. It must be such a miserable existence for some people.

Even if you think MK's comments are inappropriate wouldn't it be better to ask for clarification of what she said instead of demanding for her to be removed from her job?

The weak minded have too big of a voice in this country!

I think it's more likely that her employers were unhappy because she had criticized the suits (about the handling of the Weinstein story) on her show. Biting the hand that feeds you usually doesn't work out so well.
 
I think it's more likely that her employers were unhappy because she had criticized the suits (about the handling of the Weinstein story) on her show. Biting the hand that feeds you usually doesn't work out so well.

lol....no. They were unhappy with her because she bombed. Her Sunday interview show flopped. And, no one wanted to watch her in the morning either.
 
lol....no. They were unhappy with her because she bombed. Her Sunday interview show flopped. And, no one wanted to watch her in the morning either.

Which happened after the plan was a bad idea, something that her bosses who hired her should have known because it was the conventional wisdom, yet did not.
 
Which happened after the plan was a bad idea, something that her bosses who hired her should have known because it was the conventional wisdom, yet did not.

My guess is NBC thought they could attract moderate Republicans to their station with Kelly, drawing the disenchanted Fox viewer their way with someone like her. It bombed.
 
If anyone really wants to know about Kelly’s beliefs, it’s not that difficult to research. Controversy is no stranger to Kelly. She was never afraid to wear her biases on her sleeve at Fox.

There is sort of an irony in this NBC saga. Kelly’s replacement is a young black woman who is a popular member of the “Today Show” cast. I wish her a long, successful career.
 
I think is it a silly issue. I don't watch Megan Kelly, but from the CNN clip it is clear she was talking about Halloween costumes where people want to dress up like their favorite character's or media stars.

She wasn't talking about minstrel shows or other "racist" efforts to make fun of anyone. The fact that Chris Cuomo said "we are talking about Black Face which is different from White face," WTH is that supposed to mean?

I am not a supporter of the "cultural appropriation" narrative. As far as I am concerned as long as the person isn't trying to make a mockery of someone's race or culture, then wearing costumes for Halloween or other party events should not "trigger" automatic animosity.

People need to stop striving to see the worst in everything. Life should not be about seeking offense where none was intended.

americanwoman said:
Or how they are trying to downplay what she said:

“But what is racist? You truly do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface at Halloween or a black person who puts on whiteface for Halloween. Back when I was a kid, that was OK, as long as you were dressing up as, like, a character,

"People said that was racist and I don’t know, I felt like, who doesn’t love Diana Ross? She wanted to look like Diana Ross for one day. I don’t know how that got racist on Halloween,” Megyn Kelly

Diana Ross is not a 'character' she is a person and you can dress like her without painting your face. Not that hard to understand given the context of the history of blackface.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Megyn Kelly got fired. She may have been stupid to hold such a discussion and make the comments she did without leaning into it as a open panel discussion as opposed to just giving her opinion in an attempt to vindicate a friend or excuse her own past behavior, but there's really no excuse for her being so woefully ignorant on the subject matter and insensitive to the history of white people dressing up/performing in black face as a professional journalist.
 
Last edited:
My guess is NBC thought they could attract moderate Republicans to their station with Kelly, drawing the disenchanted Fox viewer their way with someone like her. It bombed.

I have been watching Megyn Kelly for awhile because I was sure that she has a critical flaw, and I want to figure it out....interestingly enough I have yet to see the braintrust at Comcast explain what they thought they were doing. I have however from the jump made the claim that they clearly dont know what they are doing re Kelly.

I was of course right again.
 
1.14.17

In-Touch Mag is reporting that Matt Lauer is pissed for these reasons:

1) this was announced during his 20th anniversary week celebrations

2) She is reportedly getting $20 mill with as he sees it no experience

3) He as not told that Comcast was trying to get her

4) She is not the right person for morning, yet a lot of people think she will end up there.

5) Everyone thinks that kelly is such a bitch that she will try to take Lauer out, by any means fair or unfair.





Well, I overstated #5 a bit, but not by much.


I have decided that it appears that Comcast does not know what they are doing...Kelly is not proven in the jobs Comcast have agreed to give her, she will cause all kinds of problems with the rest of the staff, she tends to blow up her workspaces under the best of conditions and coming in in this way to Comcast is very far from the best.......the chances that this is going to work for Comcast are very low....less than 10%.

This post stands up to time.
 
Back
Top Bottom