1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Megyn Kelly Today" is not off to such a wonderful start

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by LongTimeListener, Sep 28, 2017.

  1. WriteThinking

    WriteThinking Well-Known Member

    Eh, she could've retired after being done with Fox, too. She just wanted to try a new avenue, and try to make her name, again, in a new area of TV.
     
  2. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    But she was at Fox for 12 years. Was it really too quick to try to cash in? How much longer should she have waited?
     
  3. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    She might get Olberman ratings!
     
  4. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    She'll probably make more in three years than she would've if she stayed at Fox for 10.

    She's nice enough, but $23 million a year? FFS.
     
  5. WriteThinking

    WriteThinking Well-Known Member

    I meant that she was too quick to leave behind the thing for which she is clearly best, and to think, perhaps too easily, that she'd be just as good in her new job. Clearly, she's not, and it seems she made a mistake.

    So, if her reason for leaving Fox was unrelated to money (as I believe), then, yes, she was too quick. If she was only after the money, well, then, no. But I really believe she left because she wanted, more than anything, to try/do something different and new. She just ended up cashing in, too, because she made the move on the heels of being the biggest thing in political news TV.

    I'd argue that "Today"/NBC was trying to cash in on her. Instead, it made a mistake, too, especially, financially speaking.

    Either way, Kelly is fortunate because she can afford it. But she could before, too.
     
  6. typefitter

    typefitter Well-Known Member

    I would LOVE to fail so badly.
     
    wicked likes this.
  7. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    There’s a big difference between $6 million — even $10 million — a year and $23 million.

    I’ll take the $23 million every time, loyalty be damned.
     
  8. Slacker

    Slacker Well-Known Member

    Hell, I'll take $6 million $600K. Where does the line form?
     
  9. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    OK, but again, she was a FOX News anchor for 12 years (and with the network for 14). How much longer should she have waited? Not trying to start a pissing match, it's a genuine question. There's a reason she wanted to try something different and new, and it's because she was at her previous stop for more than a decade (and NBC doubled her salary).

    I don't think a couple more years of seasoning at FOX was going to increase her value or her skill set to make her a success at NBC.

    Today/NBC certainly made a mistake. We're in total agreement on that one.
     
    wicked likes this.
  10. playthrough

    playthrough Moderator Staff Member

    I thought that Job One on the big morning shows was to be likable. She's just not. They're trying with that studio filled with smiling tourist women, but it's not making her look any warmer.
     
  11. Slacker

    Slacker Well-Known Member

    Kelly also bolted because of the sexual harassment problem at Fox, didn't she?

    Not that NBC didn't have its own, but ...
     
  12. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Say what you want about the move - it helped give MSNBC a big boost at 9 p.m. with Maddow. It really is the difference between cable and broadcast and literally night and day. Letterman's AM show failed - he prospered at night.
    I think Brokaw is the only one who was a "hit" in the morning and succeeded in the PM as well.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page