Megyn Kelly Strikes Back At Playboy

Megyn Kelly Strikes Back At Playboy

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
June 5, 2009 - 15:34 ET

As NewsBusters' Stephen Gutowski has been reporting, Playboy.com earlier this week published an astonishingly vile piece advocating hate sex against prominent conservative women.

One of those on the list, Fox News's Megyn Kelly, responded to this disgusting attack on air Friday.

Readers are advised to fasten their seatbelts tightly, for Megyn was loaded for vitriolic misogynist bear, and she wasn't taking prisoners (video embedded below the fold, h/t Johnny Dollar):

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

No one messes with Megyn...

June 5, 2009 - 15:38 ET by jawebster1

Kelly. She proves you don't have to be an Ivy Leaguer to make it with Fox News. All you need are looks and...brains! Jim Webster

I do not know a lot of ivy leaguers that actually have "brains".

June 5, 2009 - 15:43 ET by pahuber

Grey matter? Yes... common sense? No.

pahuber, Does the ability

June 5, 2009 - 16:10 ET by hydrodynDM

pahuber,

Does the ability to stereotype require grey matter or common sense?

Sometimes

June 5, 2009 - 17:18 ET by ahusser

Sterotypes contain the truth. I would sterotype you as a "troll".

"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'

ahusser, I point out the

June 5, 2009 - 17:37 ET by hydrodynDM

ahusser,

I point out the stupidity of suggesting that ivy leaguers lack common sense and that makes me a troll?

Your comment did not accurately address my post.

June 5, 2009 - 19:06 ET by pahuber

I did not use a sweeping generalization and say all ivy leaguers.

It has been my experience that most ivy leaguers that I have met seriously lack common sense. Your knee jerk reaction compelled you to jump on it and I was prone to ignore it until you commented again to ahusser.

Why would you classify that suggesting ivy leaguers lack common sense is stupid? Seriously, some have book smarts, but not much more... seems you screwed the pooch hydrodynDN.

Aww, now the liberal

June 5, 2009 - 21:29 ET by gmaniac1

Aww, now the liberal whiners get their feelings hurt when you pick on their precious Ivy League.

When the people fear the government it's called tyranny, when the government fears the people it's called liberty!

gmaniac1, And people who

June 5, 2009 - 23:23 ET by hydrodynDM

gmaniac1,

And people who didn't attend a top tier school find it necessary to demonize the Ivy League to abate their intellectual insecurity.

By the way, the fact that you've been here less than two months is showing if you think I'm a liberal.

pahuber, If a guy tells

June 5, 2009 - 23:13 ET by hydrodynDM

pahuber,

If a guy tells you that most of the black folks he's ever met have been scum and you call him on it and he tells you that he didn't mean to imply that most or all black folks are, you'd buy that?

So just to get this straight, you were just putting forth your personal experience - that most ivy leaguers you have met lack common sense - but you didn't mean that as a generalization of any sort.

OK.

My "stupid" comment was made under that assumption that you were generalizing. If you honestly weren't, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. But I'm sure you could see how someone might jump to that conclusion.

And unlike you, my person experiences suggest that common sense is just as prevalent among ivy leaguers as any other group of people. Maybe I've been hanging out with a better class of them than you.

As a side note - I've love to know what you define as "common sense" and how you distinguish it from "book smarts".

hydro ~ your post to gmaniac basically seems to reveal your

June 6, 2009 - 13:50 ET by pahuber

beef.

"And people who didn't attend a top tier school find it necessary to
demonize the Ivy League to abate their intellectual insecurity."

This must be the point you wanted to make in the first place.

"By the way, the fact that you've been here less than two months is showing if you think I'm a liberal."

This was a response to gmaniac. You may not be a liberal, but you sure have a knee jerk reaction like a liberal... at least on our posts you did.

"And unlike you, my person experiences suggest that common sense is just
as prevalent among ivy leaguers as any other group of people. Maybe
I've been hanging out with a better class of them than you."

I sincerely doubt that, hydro.

"As a side note - I've love to know what you define as "common sense" and how you distinguish it from "book smarts"."

There are so many examples, but here goes:

Someone who is able to retain ideas, data and comments in order to pass a test or tests. However, when practicality is in play (where the rubber meets the road) they do not have a clue as to how they apply previously 'gained knowledge'...

Heres a thought for you hydro. Do you not think that alot of ivy league colleges are just incubators for liberal ideology in many of their schools today?

pahuber, In a sense, you

June 6, 2009 - 15:41 ET by hydrodynDM

pahuber,

In a sense, you are correct about what my beef was. As a conservative, I have to put up with liberals accusing conservatives of being anti-science and anti-intellectual and then I see people like you posting comments like yours which do little more than give those same liberals the ammunition they need to support their point.

That aside, the brunt of my comment to you had to do with what seemed like a generalization on your part. Now, you have said that, in fact, you weren't generalizing - that you were just commenting on your own personal experience (I'm paraphrasing, of course). But then you say this:

I sincerely doubt that, hydro.

This was in response to me telling you about my personal experiences with ivy leaguers and how much common sense they have or don't have.

Hmmmm. You aren't generalizing and yet it seems that you are still suggesting that ivy leaguers that you haven't met (and that I have) still lack common sense.

Not only do you seem to be generalizing (which, according to you, you weren't), but you're also basically calling me a liar in order to support that generalization.

Am I missing something here? I suppose that your comment would have been about me "hanging out with a better class of them", but then I have ask what the point of your comment was since it isn't really clear to me.

You also said:

You may not be a liberal, but you sure have a knee jerk reaction like a liberal... at least on our posts you did.

I gave you an argument (you know, the whole black guy thing) about why it was understandable for me to assume you were generalizing. You didn't comment on that. So if you want to keep characterizing my comment as "knee jerk", instead of actually addressing what I wrote, go ahead. I'm sure no one will notice.

Also, I'm curious. Would you consider gmanica1's post a "knee jerk reaction"? He called me a liberal - not because anything I said would suggest I am - but because I was disagreeing with you about a topic that had basically nothing to do with political ideology. He just assumed I was a liberal because I was disagreeing with someone who (he and I assume) is a conservative.

That pretty much seems like the definition of "knee jerk reaction". So would you accuse gmanica1 of acting like a liberal?

Regarding your example (really more a definition) of common sense, would you consider an experimental scientist to have book smarts or common sense (or both). I mean, an experimentalist has to be able to apply what he's learned from books to actual experimental set ups.

Also, your definition seems to assume that the knowledge gained in specialized areas of study actually have practical applications in day to day life. In some cases that's true but in many it isn't. Explain to me how my understanding of Relativity could help be during the course of a typical day. It doesn't. So your definition seems to come up short.

I'll address your questions about colleges as incubators for liberal ideology in a reply to your other comment, below.

"As a conservative, I have

June 6, 2009 - 16:19 ET by pahuber

"As a conservative, I have to put up with liberals accusing
conservatives of being anti-science and anti-intellectual and then I
see people like you posting comments like yours which do little more
than give those same liberals the ammunition they need to support their
point."

- First, who doesn't have to put up w/ liberals doing as you say they do?

- Second, do you seriously believe that my comments fuel their discontent and give them the ammo they need? I think you are delusional if you actually believe your own statement. Liberalism seems to be a mental illness, IMHO. You do not like my comments, fine. Please do not kid yourself that you will be able to change liberals minds by being kind or understanding. Sometimes a tough approach to their delusion is necessary.

"Now, you have said that, in fact, you weren't generalizing - that you
were just commenting on your own personal experience (I'm paraphrasing,
of course)."

That should have been very evident from the first post... go back and read it hydro... you don't think it is evident that was my perspective from experience?

"But then you say this:

'I sincerely doubt that, hydro.'

This was in response to me telling you about my personal experiences
with ivy leaguers and how much common sense they have or don't have."

- It was a direct response to this comment by you.

"Maybe I've been hanging out with a better class of them than you."

I apologize if my saying 'I sincerely doubt that, hydro' bothers you so much... it's just a retort.

"Not only do you seem to be generalizing (which, according to you, you
weren't), but you're also basically calling me a liar in order to
support that generalization."

- I suppose you can make my comments seem to be whatever you want to make them, hydro. My retort was just that...more directed at the ivy league notion of the quality of your friends. Perhaps you should just chill and take it for what it's worth. You are certainly not going to convince me otherwise, as I will not convince you on these points of ours.

"I gave you an argument (you know, the whole black guy thing) about why
it was understandable for me to assume you were generalizing. You
didn't comment on that. So if you want to keep characterizing my
comment as "knee jerk", instead of actually addressing what I wrote, go
ahead. I'm sure no one will notice."

- I ignored this comment because it is a very poor analogy. How is it you bring race into this debate of ours to show I am generalizing? I found it pretty inflammatory and not worthy of a response since I was dealing with ivy leaguers.

- Yes your commentary was knee jerkish. If you go back to what started this you may be able to admit you are just getting your undies in a bunch over nothing.

- I also agree with gmainiac that your response was a knee jerk reaction and akin to one of our lib trolls on this site. Not saying you are a lib or troll, but your response seems a bit inflated compared to the comments that have driven you.

"Regarding your example (really more a definition) of common sense,
would you consider an experimental scientist to have book smarts or
common sense (or both). I mean, an experimentalist has to be able to
apply what he's learned from books to actual experimental set ups."

- I see you read my definition. It's quite possible that they have both. Again, they may not have the common sense to shower or use deodorant... makes it hard to work with some of these types. Ive know some to have to be asked to go home and clean up because they were causing headaches with their BO. True story.

"Explain to me how my understanding of Relativity could help be during
the course of a typical day. It doesn't. So your definition seems to
come up short."

- You are correct. My definition does come up short, as do many other definitions. I merely was polite enough to try and answer your question and come up with a definition, hydro. Of course these theoretical (as far as job related) have purposes...say unlike lesbian underwater basket weaving 101. Do you want to have accolades for merely punching holes in my definition? Heck, that's easy... ask questions, punch holes, ask more questions, punch more holes.

I am starting to see that answering your questions only serves to help you make some sort of point that does not fit the intent of what I was saying. Is that how it works with you hydro? I hope not because that is disingenuous on your part.

pahuber, "- Second, do

June 8, 2009 - 19:54 ET by hydrodynDM

pahuber,

"- Second, do you seriously believe that my comments fuel their
discontent and give them the ammo they need? I think you are
delusional if you actually believe your own statement. Liberalism
seems to be a mental illness, IMHO. You do not like my comments,
fine. Please do not kid yourself that you will be able to change
liberals minds by being kind or understanding. Sometimes a tough
approach to their delusion is necessary."

Well, keep in mind that I took your initial statement to be a generalization. Consequently, I didn't view it as a statement in the spirit of being tough - I saw it as a juvenile statement stereotyping people simply because of the school they happened to go to.

And let's get to my "knee jerk" reaction in taking your initial statement as a generalization. I gave you an argument to show that it was pretty reasonable for me to assume you were generalization. When I pointed out that you ignored that argument, your response was:

"- I ignored this comment because it is a very poor analogy. How is it
you bring race into this debate of ours to show I am generalizing? I
found it pretty inflammatory and not worthy of a response since I was
dealing with ivy leaguers."

First, I think your real reason for ignoring it is because you know I'm right in saying that it was reasonable for me to assume you were generalizing. That's just my opinion, of course.

Second, your complaint about the subject matter of that argument makes you sound like a over-sensitive liberal - if you don't mind me saying.

Third, it's the structure of the argument that's relevant, not the particular topic. The fact that you don't get that suggests maybe you should have picked up a bit more book learning in lieu of all that common sense I'm sure you're so proud of. So let me restate the argument in a way that won't offend you:

Person A (that would be jawebster1 in this case) says that a particular x has the property y. Person B (that would be you) responds by saying that most x they have encountered haven't had property y. Here's the questions - is it reasonable to conclude that Person B is implying that most x don't have property y (i.e. that they are generalizing)?

Technically, person B didn't make this generalization, but I think it's reasonable to entertain the possibility that that was what their response to person A was mean to imply. Your position has been that it wasn't reasonable - that it's a knee jerk reaction. I obviously don't agree. But can you see where I was coming from in assuming that?

By the way - you never did tell me whether you considered gemaniac1's comment a knee jerk reaction. You did say:

"- I also agree with gmainiac that your response was a knee jerk reaction and akin to one of our lib trolls on this site."

Which is kind of odd since technically gmaniac1 never said anything about knee jerk reactions. He made a snide comment about my feelings being hurt. Looks like you read something into his comment which he didn't really say. Should I start accusing you of being disingenuous?

With regard to the whole 'I sincerely doubt that, hydro.' comment - if you had read the paragraph in my last response to you which started with "Am I missing something here?", you could have saved yourself the trouble of commenting on the two paragraphs that proceeded it.

Regarding your true story about the smelly researcher - well, I don't want to be accused of reading too much into it - so maybe you could tell me what the point of it was. If it was to point out that there are people who lack hygiene is this world - well thanks for the obvious statement. I'm sure I can find them in any area of work - including yours.

Now - I'm going to express an opinion about what your true story is really about. I recognize that you didn't actually say what I'm about to suggest - again, it's just my opinion. I think it's an example of you trying to bring folks that you are intimated by intellectually down a notch or two. And honestly, that's what I think your original post to jawebster1 was about. Again - just my opinion. I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong.

Regarding your definition of common sense - I wasn't aware that I wasn't allowed to point out weaknesses within your argument. If my doing that hurts your feelings, I'll try to be nicer about it in the future. But just so you know - the whole point of an argument is to "ask questions, punch holes, ask more questions, punch more holes."

If you're not cool with that, maybe you should avoid arguments.

Kerry was an Ivy Leaguer

June 6, 2009 - 08:23 ET by CobraMan

Hydro,

Jonh Kerry was an Ivy Leaguer , remember? I would hardly equate his actions in Vietnam (writing your own Purple Heart requests?) with common sense.

Al Gore was an Ivy Leaguer too. Do you think his obsession with Global Warming is indicitive of comon sense?

Ted Kennedy, another Ivy Leaguer who's lack of common sense lead to the death of an innocent woman.

These are just a few examples of how being an Ivy Leaguer isn't indicative of the ability to acquire and practice common sense.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court

CobraMan, Um, OK. I

June 6, 2009 - 12:13 ET by hydrodynDM

CobraMan,

Um, OK.

I never said or even suggested that being an Ivy Leaguer automatically means you have common sense (whatever that is).

My issue was with someone seeming to suggest that being an Ivy Leaguer automatically means you don't.

hydro ~ never said that, as you know. But just for the sake of

June 6, 2009 - 13:58 ET by pahuber

argument and help you with your 'debate' I would say that I mainly think ivy league schools have become something of an incubation center for liberalism and not a place to actually learn anything useful.

Now, having said that, I understand their are still remnants within ivy league schools that still can teach useful things that actually apply to life w/o screwing up society; but no, usually, my experience with ivy leaguers is that they do not have much common sense.

Sorry that bothers you.... not an attack on you are anyone else...just an observation as I have mentioned in my first post. You jumped on that as if to show me some error of my way... good luck on that one ; )

pahuber, In your post

June 6, 2009 - 16:15 ET by hydrodynDM

pahuber,

In your post above, you suggesting what my main beef with your original comment was (and you turned out to be correct).

Let me do the same. Your comment about ivy leaguers is motivated by the fact that you see Ivy League schools as breeding grounds for liberals and since you don't like liberals, you find it convenient to denigrate ivy leaguers by suggesting that they lack common sense. (Yes, I know, I know, you weren't generalizing ... )

Am I close?

Regarding your characterization of Ivy League schools - first off, the vast majority of colleges and universities are dominated - both in faculty and within the student body - by people who consider themselves liberals or who hold liberal views. Why you are harping on the Ivy League isn't clear to me - you criticisms applies to most schools.

Having said that, you should keep in mind that most students entering college already have liberal views on things. If you think about it, liberal ideology is basically the same as a teenager's outlook on life: both have a natural tendency to rebel against authority, both want the world to be "fair", both think personal freedom and privacy are of paramount importance but both also want some system in place to help them when things go wrong.

So to suggest that colleges create liberals in like suggesting that prisons create criminals.

I do, however, think that colleges tend to discourage conservative views - but I think this is mainly the result of students interacting with other students. I remember college and I don't recall any of my professors having any profound influence on how I viewed conservative or liberal topics.

Are there cases of professors who push their personal liberal views in class? Yes, of course. But I don't think it's as common as some think. My personal experience suggests that most professors are professionals when it comes to their work. Are there exceptions - yes. But then, you can find examples of people who lack professionalism in any field of work.

On top of that, as you seem to suggest, many of the topics covered in classes simply have nothing to do with political ideologies. It would be odd for a liberal professor to espouse his personal views in a math or science or engineering class.

As a final comment, you seem to be suggesting that colleges and universities should only teach about topics that have actual real life usefulness. That's a pretty odd stance to take.

By your criterion, you would have to chuck out most of science, math, philosophy, large areas of history and psychology and any number of other fields that don't have direct applications to day to day life.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you also seem to be conflating "liberal" with "useless" when it comes to topics of study. You further seem to be suggesting that if students are taught nothing but useless (i.e. liberal) topics in college, then they end up with no common sense.

So, in your view, colleges should only teach topics that help students develop common sense? If that is your view, maybe you can give me a list of topics of study that you approve of?

hydro, not being verbose and jumping to illogical conclusions is

June 6, 2009 - 16:43 ET by pahuber

a lost art.

"Why you are harping on the Ivy League isn't clear to me - you criticisms applies to most schools."

- Was not harping on ivy league. Making a statement. Please go back and see the original, hydro. What is your problem?

"So to suggest that colleges create liberals in like suggesting that prisons create criminals."

- I think your analogy is very flawed here.

"I remember college and I don't recall any of my professors having any
profound influence on how I viewed conservative or liberal topics."

- Some do and some don't I suppose. So if they don't for you then the point is moot?

"Are there cases of professors who push their personal liberal views in
class? Yes, of course. But I don't think it's as common as some think.
My personal experience suggests that most professors are professionals
when it comes to their work. Are there exceptions - yes. But then, you
can find examples of people who lack professionalism in any field of
work."

- I think you are way off base here. I think it goes on far too much in colleges and high schools for that matter. You give them far too much credit, hydro.

"On top of that, as you seem to suggest, many of the topics covered in
classes simply have nothing to do with political ideologies. It would
be odd for a liberal professor to espouse his personal views in a math
or science or engineering class."

- Odd? Absolutely, and guess what... it happens much more than you give credit.

"As a final comment, you seem to be suggesting that colleges and
universities should only teach about topics that have actual real life
usefulness. That's a pretty odd stance to take."

- I never infered this. This is not what I meant and I am starting to see you are seeing much more than is there, hydro.

"By your criterion, you would have to chuck out most of science, math,
philosophy, large areas of history and psychology and any number of
other fields that don't have direct applications to day to day life."

- Please explain using my words from our discussion how you came to this obscene conclusion? Oh, my definition that I was polite enough to provide you that you can easily ram holes in... well, I agree it is not perfect. It was an attempt to answer a question of yours. You gleefully took it an ran wild. I will not make that mistake again with you.

"You further seem to be suggesting that if students are taught nothing
but useless (i.e. liberal) topics in college, then they end up with no
common sense."

- As in the words I never used in my points... like the words all, every, each and every, in totality?

- I will make a strong statement here, hydro. I believe you are very very disingenuous. Your posts to me make a strong case of making wild assertions with my posts. That is very evident.

"So, in your view, colleges should only teach topics that help students
develop common sense? If that is your view, maybe you can give me a
list of topics of study that you approve of?"

- Framing this as a question does not make it any less asinine.

pahuber, First, I'll

June 8, 2009 - 20:19 ET by hydrodynDM

pahuber,

First, I'll freely admit that I may have assumed you held certain views which, in fact, you didn't based on making wrong inferences from your comments. But I don't think any of those errors were "illogical". I think the word you are looking for is "incorrect". An illogical inference would directly contradict one or more of the statements from which it's derived and I don't think I've done that - but maybe you can point those out to me.

In response to my jail analogy, you wrote:

"- I think your analogy is very flawed here."

OK. Care to explain why or should I just take your word for it?

Regarding professors you wrote:

"- I think you are way off base here. I think it goes on far too much
in colleges and high schools for that matter. You give them far too
much credit, hydro."

Well, there is no real way for either of us to back up our positions regarding how most professors are, so we simply have a difference of opinion here.

On the same topic, you wrote:

"- Odd? Absolutely, and guess what... it happens much more than you give credit."

Again, unless you can actually back that up with some evidence, it's just opinion (as is my own view).

Regarding the types of topics I was guessing you might find OK in colleges, you wrote:

"- I never infered this. This is not what I meant and I am starting to see you are seeing much more than is there, hydro. "

Well, first, you meant to say "implied" and that what I inferred from your comments is wrong.

Second, I based my comment on this statement of yours from another post:

"However, when practicality is in play (where the rubber meets the road)
they do not have a clue as to how they apply previously 'gained
knowledge'..."

Granted, you didn't say that you thought colleges should "only teach about topics that have actual real life usefulness." (my words) but I think you can see how that might be reasonably inferred from your comment. If I was wrong in this - OK. But your suggestions that I'm being disingenuous - that I'm purposefully twisting your words - simply aren't true.

I'll freely admit to drawing a wrong inference if that's what I've done - but not to purposefully trying to read your words the wrong way.

I could be snide and suggest that maybe you should be clearer about what you mean, but the fact is that this sort of thing - drawing wrong inferences based on another's comments - is a common error that occurs in all arguments - particularly online ones where you can't interrupt someone in mid-statement to ask for a clarification.

(The rest of your comments are about an argument that you've said was based on an assumption on my part about what you were saying which was incorrect - so there's no point in commenting on them).

Let's just agree that you have taken my initial comments way too

June 9, 2009 - 00:45 ET by pahuber

far.

Something triggered your doing it. OK. We all have something that makes us do what we do... , but geeze, look at the initial post and look where it has gotten us. Do you want every phrase you have every posted judged in this way? I would assume, not. Now, you must admit I have been patient, but there are several other issues more pressing than this.

My initial 'anecdotal' view of ivy league has not changed. Sorry. They are not the same paragons they used to be. I have a masters degree and am not 'educationally challenged' as you may think I am. I just hope our country can get back to basics.... and that includes realistic studies.

Take care,

pahuber

pahuber, The thing that

June 9, 2009 - 21:24 ET by hydrodynDM

pahuber,

The thing that "triggered" my initial comment was a pretty reasonable interpretation of your first comment. I've argued why someone might assume you were generalization and rather than actually addressing my argument, you've ignored it (well, actually, you bizarrely dismissed it as "inflammatory").

You ask:

Do you want every phrase you have every posted judged in this way? I would assume, not.

Actually, in my area of work, I have to be able to defend or justify just about everything I say or write - that includes each and every sentence. So no - I don't mind those types of arguments at all.

Regarding your view of the Ivy League - although I usually avoid cliche's, I'll use one - I think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Yes, most colleges and universities in the U.S. have created majors like "women's studies" and "African studies" which, in my opinion, are joke majors. As far as I can tell, they are a direct result of the implementation of affirmative action in the college admission process.

If you're going to admit students who shouldn't be in your school in the first place and who will most likely fail out within the first year, you pretty much have to create majors with classes that they can pass.

But the creation of these majors hasn't been at the exclusion of the ones that have always been there. The fact is that the top tier schools do have some of the best science, math, engineering, business, philosophy, psychology, pre-med, architectural etc... programs around.

I guess you can argue that the inclusion of those joke majors has, in some sense, cheapened these schools - and I can't really disagree with that. But in my experience, only a small percentage of students at any given school major in those kinds of studies and the students who don't see them for the joke they are. Hell, most students view sociology as a joke major as well. Of course, this is just anecdotal.

I guess I just don't have quite the pessimistic view of our colleges and universities that you do.

Megyn Kelly

June 5, 2009 - 15:49 ET by BondPlainBond

Megyn Kelly

Megyn Kelly is currently a co-host of FOX News Channel's "America's Newsroom." She also appears regularly on "The O'Reilly Factor With Bill O'Reilly."

Most recently, Kelly analyzed exit poll information on Election Night and co-anchored "America's Election HQ" with Bill Hemmer throughout the 2008 presidential election season. Kelly reported live from the Democratic National Convention and Republican National Convention.

Kelly reported on the 2007 Virginia Tech campus massacre, live from Blacksburg, Virginia, and while rescue efforts were underway for the 6 trapped miners from Huntington, Utah. She also reported live from Durham, North Carolina on the rape charges against three Duke University lacrosse players, breaking new details that ultimately helped exonerate the defendants.

Prior to her anchor role, Kelly served as a general assignment reporter for FNC based in Washington, where she provided live coverage of the confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John Roberts. She also reported on the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, in addition to, the indictments of Scooter Libby and Tom DeLay.

Before joining FNC, Kelly served as a general assignment reporter for ABC News affiliate WJLA-TV in Washington. During her tenure at WJLA, Kelly covered national and local stories of interest, including the 2004 presidential race and the D.C. sniper cases. Previously, Kelly practiced law as a corporate litigator.

Prior to her career in journalism, Kelly, an attorney, practiced as a litigator with Jones Day in New York City, Chicago and Washington, D.C. before leaving to pursue journalism. She joined FOX News in 2004.

Kelly earned her J.D. from Albany Law School, where she also served as editor of the Albany Law Review and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from Syracuse

Amen

June 5, 2009 - 15:42 ET by bigtimer

Amen Megyn...Amen!

Btw...I noticed that Playboy still didn't answer why that was allowed to be posted in the first place...they managed to side-step that.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

bt...Simply put, because Playboy is...

June 5, 2009 - 15:58 ET by PrairieSky

written and run by a bunch of gutless, disgusting, misogynistic, slimebag cowards...

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

And after publishing that,

June 5, 2009 - 16:06 ET by motherbelt

And after publishing that, they claim that it wasn't intended to encourage violence against anyone?

Then what the hell WAS it intended to do???

So, the fact that they have "a long history of supporting women's rights" (cough!) means that this was OK????

I guess they pulled it because they were "sorry if anyone was offended" as the ol' non-apology goes.

What a load of B as in B, S as in S!

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson

motherbelt...Exactly...I just hope...

June 5, 2009 - 20:35 ET by PrairieSky

that that piece of trash article doesn't plant an idea into the mind of some sicko pervert somewhere, to go after one of these women...In this day and age, who knows...there are so many demented crazies out there...

And Playboy's crap about "we support women's rights" is a load of complete and total BS! They say that, and then publish their trash every month...That's like someone flying everywhere on their private jet, and then when asked about the carbon footprint that they are making with all those fuel emissions from their plane, they then run out and buy a bunch of carbon offsets, to make themselves feel better about it and to show how "green" they are...Crap, crap, crap...

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

Watch REDEYE

June 5, 2009 - 19:36 ET by LoosMoose

Watch the REDEYE version of this, Andy got a response from PLAYBOY, and while they did not apologize... they did admit that this was NOT something that "slipped through the cracks" it was passed through the editorial process and approved.

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=5615478&referralPlaylistId=b91bfb7497c00540ff84c65f474c804a116d1713&maven_referrer=staf

PLAYBOY stated that the piece was removed not because it was offensive... but because it was being "misinterpreted" and was supposed to be something of a parody of the other "top ten" lists that frequent the magazine such as Top Ten girls of: sports, SEC, Tennis etc...

LoosMoose...Oh absolutely...

June 5, 2009 - 20:32 ET by PrairieSky

this was not an accident, and didn't just slip by...This was given the "okay" by their editors...

As for Playboy's contention that this was being "misinterpreted", and was intended to be a parody...That's pure, 100% BS...How stupid do they think we all are? Thanks for the links!

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

Megyn is a favorite

June 5, 2009 - 22:25 ET by KC Mulville

I enjoy watching Megyn. She takes no crap from O'Reilly, but she doesn't do it in a mean way.

When she slapped down Obama's Bill Burton during the campaign, throwing his rudeness back in his face, I loved it. I know she's going on maternity leave in a few months, and when she comes back, I hope Fox gives her a nice perch.

KC... That Burton

June 5, 2009 - 22:31 ET by bigtimer

KC...

That Burton slap-down was absolutely priceless...I'll never forget it!

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Atta Way, Megyn!

June 5, 2009 - 15:51 ET by BondPlainBond

Megyn doesn't take any bulls**t from anyone.

Bravo, Megyn Kelly!!

June 5, 2009 - 15:52 ET by PrairieSky

IMHO, Megyn Kelly is one of the best on-air folks that Fox has...She's very smart, well-spoken, does her homework to back up her arguments (you can tell she's an attorney), and doesn't suffer fools...I think she's terrific, and good for her for letting the sleeze merchants at Playboy have it with both barrels. I wonder if she and the rest of the women named in that despicable article, have any grounds to sue Playboy?? If they do, I hope someone pursues it...I'd love to see Playboy put out of business...It is supposedly having financial trouble, so hopefully it wouldn't take much to help it's demise along...

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

Cocky Liberals

June 5, 2009 - 16:51 ET by VengeanceIsMine

These arrogant libs are amazing. Talk about overstepping. They believe with Lord Teleprompter in the hiz-house, they have the keys to the kingdom forever. I see no womyns groups coming to their defense. I have heard some of the women Bachmann, Malkin, Ingraham and now Megyn defend themselves. I can't wait 'till the next femiNazi says a word to me about anything. I will use the "where were you when Bush...." (Replace Bush with Playboy Rape List)

To quote Glenn Beck 6/4/09 "Turn the tables on them and let them live off the scraps"

These leftie-statist creeps make me sick.

"You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt." Daniel Hannan

hate sex

June 5, 2009 - 17:17 ET by nolotrippen

Isn't this just another way of saying "rape"?

nolotrippen...You betcha! It's...

June 5, 2009 - 17:25 ET by PrairieSky

the liberal or "progressive", politically correct way of saying "rape" dontcha know!!!

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

Isn't the Orwellian term

June 5, 2009 - 20:22 ET by Radical1979

Isn't the Orwellian term "newspeak"? It's been a long time since I read "1984" but I'm thinking he predicted a lot in terms of using language to propel a government agenda.

lower then whale poop

June 5, 2009 - 18:19 ET by pappyinpa

it's sad when these libs stoop as low as to try and diminish anyone that shows the least threat to their so-called egos. but that's how they got king prompto the great appeaser elected. hang in there ms. kelly, their day's coming.

Kelly

June 5, 2009 - 19:04 ET by charlietexas

I love her.

You tell em Megyn

June 5, 2009 - 19:13 ET by shawn228

Megyn backed up her argument very well and made Playboy look like fool. The only downside is that I do not foresee a Megyn Kelly Playboy pictorial in the near future ;-(

He had my vote

→ Shawn

June 5, 2009 - 19:15 ET by Cool Arrow

My prayer for Shawn.

Dear Lord, please send some clothes to all those poor women on Shawn's computer.

"The Rule of Law is the only thing that separates us from Democrats" - a Firefighter

ROFLMAO!

June 5, 2009 - 19:18 ET by pahuber

That was funny ; )

Lmao CA :-) He had my

June 5, 2009 - 19:19 ET by shawn228

Lmao CA :-)

He had my vote

Cool A...

June 5, 2009 - 22:18 ET by Georgia Girl

Shawn's comment: Not funny. :(

Your comment: Funny! :)

Shawn/for cryin' out loud...

June 5, 2009 - 22:15 ET by Georgia Girl

I don't think Megyn would appreciate your comment, Shawn. Ick. Insensitive. Really poor sense of timing, to put it mildly.

As for the rest of it, Megyn handled it with class. It's disgraceful that it ever occurred.

Sorry Georgia Girl

June 5, 2009 - 22:50 ET by shawn228

I did not mean to push your buttons. I think Megyn is hawt, but I did not mean to offend you or anyone else. Apologies.

He had my vote

Shawn...

June 6, 2009 - 09:41 ET by Georgia Girl

That was very nice of you. Thanks, dude. ;)

Modern "Journalists"

June 5, 2009 - 19:38 ET by iveseenitall

The Playboy writer gives another example of what modern "journalists" have become. The jackass obviously could never hold his own in an intellectual discussion with any of the women he mentioned in his article. So what's his next best option? Do exactly what he did-- write an immature, misogynist piece of garbage which insults him much more than those of whom he wrote. Yes, he's a modern "liberal" to the core. How sad.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"