What? Science at Fox 'News'? What's next?
OK, I've got to admire Megyn Kelly here. In many ways, she's typical of Fox - young, blonde, and beautiful (only the women, of course), and very right-wing. But she has her moments.
Remember her on election night, speaking to Karl Rove? "Is this just math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?"
Make no mistake, she normally parrots the Fox 'News' Republican line, herself. But as I say, she has her moments. And this was definitely one of them.
Yesterday, I posted the clip of the all-male Fox panel discussing this. And Erick Erickson has blogged about it, too:
Many feminist and emo lefties have their panties in a wad over my statements in the past 24 hours about families. ...
I also noted that the left, which tells us all the time we’re just another animal in the animal kingdom, is rather anti-science when it comes to this. In many, many animal species, the male and female of the species play complementary roles, with the male dominant in strength and protection and the female dominant in nurture. It’s the female who tames the male beast.
I have no idea what an "emo lefty" is supposed to be (neither did Kelly, apparently), and Erickson continues to demonstrate his ignorance of science every time he opens his mouth. (Yes, human beings are an animal species. No, that doesn't imply that we should model ourselves after other species, necessarily. Neither should lions try to act like rabbits, or vice versa.)
But Kelly points out scientific research which backs up her position. "Why are we supposed to take your word for it - 'Erick Erickson's science' - instead all of these experts?" And then she points out the similarity to complaints about interracial marriage decades ago, ending with a nod to President Obama.
Is this still Fox 'News,' or have we gone into some parallel dimension here?
Of course, I don't expect Megyn Kelly to stray far from the party line in most cases. She's clearly ambitious, and she's not going to buck Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes, so I suspect that this little controversy is just a way to promote the Megyn Kelly brand. And note that it won't do Fox 'News' any harm, either (more on that below).
Maybe that's cynical, but I'm not about to overlook the rest of Kelly's career at Fox. I've posted clips of her before that are far less flattering than this one! Still, I must give credit where credit is due.
And I absolutely love any civil war among right-wing extremists:
Bryan Fischer: "And I want to tell you,... you talk about a feminist on steroids, that's Megyn Kelly. She was hot!" (I don't think he understands what that means, these days.) "And I like Megyn Kelly, but she is a feminist to the core, she was resentful, she was angry, she was bitter, she was hostile, she was aggressive to these poor guys..."
Yeah, "these poor guys" who are supposed to be dominant, huh? And now they're crying because Megyn Kelly was too "aggressive." Wahhh!
That's hilarious, don't you think? I feel the same way when I hear those so-called 'men's rights activists' whining about women. But,... but we're supposed to be dominant! It's just not fair. Why won't you let us be dominant? Pretty please?
But note how Fischer ends this: "I mean, I like Fox News. And they're better than anything else that's out there in terms of cable news and mainstream media, but... you certainly can't count on Megyn Kelly to defend a biblical view of roles in the home."
I called this a civil war, but it's not, not really. Fox 'News' may not be crazy enough for the craziest people on the right (and yes, no matter how crazy you get, there are people even crazier), but that's all they've got. They're not going to abandon Fox over this.
And what about Fox? They're in this to make money. Sure, they push a right-wing agenda, but money trumps everything else. (And remember, the Republican Party's 'Southern strategy' itself was designed not to defend 'biblical views,' but to pass tax cuts for the rich.) And their audience is dying off.
Fischer's bunch of elderly white religious nuts aren't a growth industry for Fox. (Even right-wingers, most of them, have no use for the "biblical view of roles in the home," not these days.) They're useful, sure, but Fox isn't going to worry much about them. Or about Erick Erickson, either. Megyn Kelly, on the other hand, is likely to attract viewers - even younger viewers.
She's not going to turn liberal. There's no chance of that. But it's likely to help her and Fox 'News' both if she stands out from all the other young blonde women Fox likes to hire. And pushing back, a bit, against the likes of Karl Rove (now that he's no longer the hero of the GOP), Erick Erickson, and Lou Dobbs isn't going to harm her a bit.
Or harm Fox 'News,' either. If I were really cynical, I'd suspect that Roger Ailes put her up to this. Ailes isn't going to let their demographic die off. He got rid of Glenn Beck, when Beck ceased to be a moneymaker, and he got rid of Sarah Palin, too, for the same reason.
Fox is going to stay closely tied to the Republican Party, of course, no doubt about that. But, unlike the GOP, Fox won't be resistant to change, not if their profits are at stake. And promoting younger, hotter people - especially women (for any number of different reasons) - is likely to be a big part of their strategy going forward.
I made fun of Fox 'News' for their all-male panel discussing women's issues, but that's an image problem, and Fox is very good at fixing such things. Don't expect any substantive changes, because that's not going to happen. But image? They tend to be very good at the superficial.
Remember, this is the same 'news network' that calls itself 'fair and balanced'!