Originally Posted by brokencycle
I agree that comparing Megyn Kelly and Rachel Maddow isn't a good comparison, but Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity is. While Kelly has her biases, Maddow is a commentator not a journalist.
Hannity, definitely. O'Reilly might be obnoxious at times but he's no Maddow.
Originally Posted by Dragon
I understand what you're saying, but I think you're missing the point. The feud between Fox and Trump has nothing (or little) to do with keeping journalistic integrity. Fox executives could care less about Kelly. It is all about power and having control over the political process. Up until now, networks like Fox basically had major power in controlling the political process on the republican side, but Trump is challenging that power. They didn't think Trump would actually go through with the boycott, but now that he did if he goes on undamaged from this
, Fox will have made a big mistake, because it confirms the loss of control/power over all future elections
. In a way, Trump's campaign is confirming that people care less about TV (and are not being controlled by TV as much) and that the internet is becoming much more important. Maybe all those tweets he makes aren't a waste of time.
I agree with the point in bold, but I don't see it as a mistake by Fox. It was out of Fox's control. They couldn't remove her from the panel. They had to keep her on knowing that if Trump walked and didn't suffer because of it, they would lose a certain amount of control over the process going forward. By removing Megyn from the panel they would be preemptively forfeiting that control while greatly reducing whatever journalistic integrity they might have. The only way Fox comes out ahead is if Trump tanks in the polls/loses Iowa because of it, which isn't going to happen.
Originally Posted by Gibonius
That bizarre statement trying to link Trump to the Ayatollah and Putin, mocking him for his Twitter obsession.
I thought that was a joke at first, or an op-ed.