By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former Fox News host Megyn Kelly criticized the network’s enthusiastic coverage of President Trump’s stance on Venezuela, comparing it to Russian propaganda due to its lack of skepticism. Kelly expressed concern about the potential for U.S. intervention and a “rah-rah cheerleading” approach, drawing parallels to past foreign interventions that resulted in quagmires. She voiced hesitation and a “yellow-light” approach, citing concerns about the involvement of U.S. troops and the embrace of hawkish figures like Senator Lindsey Graham. Kelly concluded by stating that she would not be joining the “cheerleading brigade,” having been “burned too many times” in the past.
Read the original article here
Megyn Kelly Says Tuning Into Fox News Is ‘Like Watching Russian Propaganda’ in Trump Era: ‘All Rah-Rah Cheerleading’ and, well, let’s unpack this. It seems that Megyn Kelly, a familiar face from the very network she’s now critiquing, has some pointed observations about the state of Fox News. The core of her statement, comparing the network’s output to “Russian propaganda” during the Trump era, is pretty stark. The implication is that Fox News, at least during that period, was less about objective reporting and more about promoting a specific narrative, a “rah-rah cheerleading” approach. This framing suggests a deeply partisan environment where facts were perhaps secondary to the desired political outcome.
Now, let’s address the elephant in the room: the irony. Many people have pointed out that Megyn Kelly herself was a prominent figure at Fox News for over a decade. The fact that she was a “cog in that machine” for years understandably causes some to question her current assessment. It’s a bit like a former team player suddenly criticizing the team’s strategy after leaving the field. The natural reaction is often skepticism, wondering if this is a genuine change of heart, a calculated move to boost her own platform, or perhaps both.
The critiques extend beyond just the network’s tone and extend to the substance of the reporting. Some comments draw parallels between Fox News and North Korean newscasts, highlighting the “brain dead propaganda being read passionately and presented as absolute truth.” This is a pretty damning analogy. It paints a picture of a media outlet that prioritized ideology over factual accuracy, a place where dissent and critical analysis were discouraged. It suggests a style of news delivery that actively seeks to manipulate rather than inform the audience.
The criticism also raises questions about Megyn Kelly’s own credibility. The comments point out her past actions and statements, some of which are frankly unsettling. These include previous comments that seem to downplay the severity of actions committed by those in power. This complicates her current stance. How can someone who was part of the problem now claim to be an objective observer? It fuels the perception that her criticisms are self-serving, aimed at staying relevant rather than a genuine concern for journalistic integrity.
The discussion highlights the pervasive cynicism that surrounds media and politics. Many people seem to believe that those in the spotlight are primarily motivated by self-interest, whether it’s money, ratings, or political ambition. This lack of trust makes it difficult to take any public figure at face value. It’s a world where the lines between objective reporting and propaganda can blur, where the truth can be difficult to discern, and where even those who once contributed to the problem might be viewed with skepticism when they change their tune.
The comparisons to “Russian propaganda” aren’t just about style; they’re also about substance. The core of the criticism is that Fox News, especially during the Trump era, consistently promoted a specific political agenda. This meant downplaying negative stories, exaggerating positive ones, and generally presenting a skewed view of reality. The “rah-rah cheerleading” approach suggests that the network prioritized supporting a particular political figure and his policies, even if it meant sacrificing journalistic principles.
The debate also highlights the issue of media bias. The question is, how much bias is acceptable? Is it okay for a news outlet to have a particular point of view, or should it strive for absolute neutrality? Even news outlets that claim to be objective often have implicit biases, influenced by the perspectives of their owners, reporters, and the target audience. The level of trust in the media has eroded considerably in the current environment. People seem to be more distrustful of the media and more inclined to believe what confirms their existing beliefs.
The overall sentiment is one of distrust and disillusionment. Many people are cynical about the motives of those in the media and in politics. The criticisms of Megyn Kelly are a reflection of that wider problem. When people see a former figure of the machine speaking out, they often assume it’s part of a larger, calculated strategy. It’s a challenge for public figures to change perceptions, especially when their past actions have raised questions about their judgment and integrity.
The comments also reflect a deep frustration with the political landscape. The comparisons to Russian or North Korean propaganda are extreme, but they do capture the feeling that some news outlets have abandoned their role of providing neutral information in favor of partisan advocacy. It’s a sentiment that many find disheartening, leading to a sense of powerlessness and a belief that those in power are not being held accountable. Ultimately, the discussion around Megyn Kelly’s comments, and the reactions to them, shed light on the complicated and often fraught relationship between media, politics, and the public.