Megyn Kelly: ‘TV hosts’ colluded with Trump to fake tough coverage
17 replies, posted
[quote]With her new memoir “Settle for More,” Fox News megastar Megyn Kelly has made a lot of news. It all started with the book’s allegations about how former Fox News chief Roger Ailes sexually harassed her back in the mid-2000s, not long after she joined the network. There were attempted grabbings and kissing, though Kelly rebuffed the television mogul and informed a supervisor. Next up were the revelations about her year-long attempt to lead a normal life while Donald Trump harassed her on Twitter and more generally pursued his sick obsession with her.
Now, on to some of the less spectacular revelations. In her discussion of Trump, Kelly points the finger at . . . faceless peers in the TV industry:
When it became too obvious that some media figures were in the tank, certain TV hosts actually took to gaming out with Trump in advance the hits they’d have to do on him occasionally to make themselves appear unbiased. I have been told this directly by more than one TV executive, at more than one network.
One new star would go over the subjects — and even the questions — with which he’d be challenging Trump just before their interviews. ‘I have to give you a hard time on X,’ the host would explain, softening the on-air blow so the candidate would not get angry and cut off access.
Another very well known host would call Trump up before criticizing the candidate and warn him: ‘I have to hit you. I’m getting killed on credibility’ — and Trump, the famous counterpuncher, mysteriously didn’t hit back after those pre-gamed attacks. Why do you think that was?
This is an egregious breach of journalistic ethics. It’s absolutely inappropriate, whether they consider themselves ‘journalists’ or not. You don’t ‘act’ the part of an independent, objective host and secretly rehearse your exchanges with a candidate. Ever.
The author faced a question about that passage from Fox News media correspondent Howard Kurtz for a segment on the show “Mediabuzz.” “It was acting,” said Kelly. When Kurtz asked if she could identify the people, Kelly responded, “No, because these were off-the-record conversations that I was privy to that I’m not at liberty to reveal, so while I’d love to tell you who it was, I have this information and I’m not allowed to name the names. But trust me, this did happen and it’s been confirmed to me by more than one television executive.”
Missing from Kelly’s reporting are a few elements: the playacting TV hosts and the networks for which they work; evidence that Kelly contacted them for their input on the matter; and examples of corrupted interviews or stories. Absent such specifics, the allegations in Kelly’s book besmirch all TV hosts and networks, not just the ones that form the basis for these claims.[/quote]
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/11/21/megyn-kelly-tv-hosts-colluded-with-trump-to-fake-tough-coverage/?utm_term=.cdcc47c20266[/url]
God Dammit, Like Trump or not, this is the state of the press. They sell Fear and Entertainment now.
you think? the among the top questions submitted for one of the debates were global warming, global warming, global warming and yet we never got a single definitive question on global warming the entire fucking election season, 18 months and it didn't exist
This just in: media tells people things ahead of taping. More at 8.
[QUOTE=Pops;51423844]This just in: media tells people things ahead of taping. More at 8.[/QUOTE]
So you stood up for Hillary when the same was revealed about her, right?
[quote]One new star would go over the subjects — and even the questions — with which he’d be challenging Trump just before their interviews. ‘I have to give you a hard time on X,’ the host would explain, softening the on-air blow so the candidate would not get angry and cut off access.
Another very well known host would call Trump up before criticizing the candidate and warn him: ‘I have to hit you. I’m getting killed on credibility’ — and Trump, the famous counterpuncher, mysteriously didn’t hit back after those pre-gamed attacks. Why do you think that was?[/quote]
Because Trump is a child and a ratings machine. If they lose the ability to interview Trump, then they have one less metaphorical and literal tool to increase ratings.
Pick your poison: [url]https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+60+minutes+interview+ratings[/url]
Since most news outlets care more about ratings than integrity, they will warn this child every time they need to ask a tough question or else they risk losing him.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;51423863]So you stood up for Hillary when the same was revealed about her, right?[/QUOTE]
You mean on the national debate that was supposedly controlled and fair? No. Ask much as I dislike trump, there is a difference between knowing the questions beforehand in an interview, and knowing them before hand on a major debate.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;51423863]So you stood up for Hillary when the same was revealed about her, right?[/QUOTE]
my point is there hasn't been "integrity" in journalism for a long while now.
[QUOTE=Pops;51424437]my point is there hasn't been "integrity" in journalism for a long while now.[/QUOTE]
Usually avoid TV News "Jourmalism"
Not a typo.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51423876]Because Trump is a child and a ratings machine. If they lose the ability to interview Trump, then they have one less metaphorical and literal tool to increase ratings.
Pick your poison: [url]https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+60+minutes+interview+ratings[/url]
Since most news outlets care more about ratings than integrity, they will warn this child every time they need to ask a tough question or else they risk losing him.[/QUOTE]
It's not about giving a candidate preferential treatment. It's about being a ratings whore. Whoa, that's a relief.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;51424211]You mean on the national debate that was supposedly controlled and fair? No. Ask much as I dislike trump, there is a difference between knowing the questions beforehand in an interview, and knowing them before hand on a major debate.[/QUOTE]
u don't think trump didn't know the questions before the debate either? its not like hillary solicited them under threat of pulling out of said debate and we have no idea if she ever saw the questions before hand either. its not a 1:1 comparison, someone was feeding hillary the questions when they shouldn't have, meanwhile trump demanded the questions or else he wouldn't show up thats a big fucking difference
[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;51424451]It's not about giving a candidate preferential treatment. It's about being a ratings whore. Whoa, that's a relief.[/QUOTE]
No no no, I'm not downplaying this. It's still preferential treatment.
[QUOTE=Sableye;51424548]u don't think trump didn't know the questions before the debate either? its not like hillary solicited them under threat of pulling out of said debate and we have no idea if she ever saw the questions before hand either. its not a 1:1 comparison, someone was feeding hillary the questions when they shouldn't have, meanwhile trump demanded the questions or else he wouldn't show up thats a big fucking difference[/QUOTE]
Yes, exactly. The media has shown to be not professionally enough all around. But the fact that some people part from the hillary campaign were allowed to participate in inner debate decision-making is just cringe worthily bad
[editline]25th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51424593]No no no, I'm not downplaying this. It's still preferential treatment.[/QUOTE]
Preferential compared to whom?
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51423745]God Dammit, Like Trump or not, this is the state of the press. They sell Fear and Entertainment now.[/QUOTE]
If there's one thing that's come out of Trump's mouth that I agree with, it's:
[url=https://youtu.be/s5rp1psm1SU?t=25s]"...but if they make terrible, terrible mistakes and those mistakes are made on purpose, to injure people - and I'm not just talking about me, I'm talking about anybody else - then yes, I think they should be...you should be able to sue them."[/url]
I'm a firm believer that the first amendment shouldn't give the media free reign to say whatever the fuck they want, truth or not, and that if they fuck up they should be held accountable.
thats already a thing -- if whats said is not true you can sue them
Suing these companies won't fix anything for the average consumer, if anything some trust busting should happen. But I'm doubtful that would happen.
"It totally happened but I'm not gonna name any names, you're just gonna have to trust an honest journalist such as myself (in contrast to those other dishonest journalists)".
I wouldn't be surprised if she's telling the truth but I can't help but be cynical about this. If I had to guess, I'd say that this is actually a fairly normal procedure for interviews and she's just blowing it up specifically about Trump because she has a book to sell.
-snip-
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.