The following post was written by Rick Wells at the conservative/libertarian blog The Free Patriot. My commentary follows it.
Megyn Kelly Vs Rachael Maddow; The Obvious Answer to a Very Stupid Question
As the president of a major network, even a discredited government propaganda arm such as MSNBC, one would expect a little more discernment from Phil Griffin than what he is presently displaying. His amusing tirade asking for an “investigation” into the reason why Fox News doubled their ratings over programming on his network in a key demographic overnight is not hard to explain. The answer is written all over Rachel Maddow’s face. Compare her appearance with that of the newly returned Megyn Kelly and anybody with half a brain has it figured out.
Of course, nobody tunes in just to ogle a pretty girl, but it is a part of the package that can’t be simply discounted.
In addition to not being overly abrasive, not talking condescendingly down to her audience and guests, and having the aura of being genuinely likeable, one can’t help but to appreciate the fact that Ms. Kelly is a force to be reckoned with. She is also an attorney. She is the complete package.
Ms. Maddow has nice glasses. I wonder if they are shatterproof athletic style.
Anyone who has been watching the Fox network, as Mr. Griffin certainly should have been doing, to learn from his competition, would know that their management realized long ago that their audience appreciated a pretty face. They still want news, but a pretty face as the messenger is a plus.
Rather than launch into a rant demanding an explanation as to why his competition once again beat him out, an investigation into why he continues to handicap his programming success with the likes of Maddow might prove more appropriate.
I don’t watch much network news myself, where I live Fox isn’t available and CNN content is barely watchable. MSNBC is not on the menu, but it wouldn’t make any difference. I refuse to be programmed.
As of the time of this writing, Nielsen has not yet responded to Griffin’s remarks. It is highly unlikely that there is any merit to his ravings. Tantrums are the domain of children and liberals. Nielsen must be aware of this as they deal largely with liberals in their media related business.
The photo associated with this article speaks volumes. A manly woman is no match for a real man’s woman. Failure would likely result as well from positioning an effeminate male in that spot. Sexual orientation aside, people are more comfortable with an attractive individual in the “face of the reader” position. It really is quite simple. A compromising morphed unisex, gender-neutral talking head just doesn’t have the mass appeal, Phil. There’s some free facts of life info from me to you.
It could be that Griffin has taken the words of John D. Rockefeller to heart, that, “Competition is a Sin.” If that is the belief of Mr. Griffin, he should pressure his network ownership to buy Fox News. Otherwise, the competition will remain and this “ugly” reality will continue to haunt him, and his network.
Mr. Wells' argument is similar to one I've heard from conservatives before... our women are hotter than yours! Had he focused more on Phil Griffin's call for an investigation and avoided the physical attractiveness angle in explaining why Megyn Kelly beats Rachel Maddow in the ratings, his post would have been much better. The substantial one-day ratings bump in the 25-54 demo by The Kelly File is odd. However, that's not to say it isn't legit. As for Mr.Wells' theory on Ms. Kelly's ratings dominance, he really does her a disservice. He mentioned the other qualities he feels give Ms. Kelly an edge over Ms. Maddow. Why bring physical appearance into the equation? Would he have done it if the two hosts were men?
One factor Mr.Wells failed to mention in explaining Ms. Kelly's ratings victories over Ms. Maddow and the other cable news shows in the 9 pm EST timeslot is this: She has a strong lead-in courtesy of Bill O'Reilly, whose show has been the #1 cable news program for several years. Political hack Sean Hannity used to come on at 9 pm and I think he was clearly the beneficiary of following The O'Reilly Factor. That's not to compare Ms. Kelly to Hannity because as I said in a previous post, I think she's far superior.
For the most part, the comments on Mr. Wells' post echoed his sentiments. In some cases, they were worse. Referring to Ms. Maddow as "Madcow", "Mancow", and a "Bill Gates Look-a-Like Bull Lezzy" is sadly what passes for intelligent thought in some conservative circles. I would compare it to something I'd expect to hear on an elementary school playground, but that would be an insult to elementary school kids.
If there was such a thing as an "irony" gene, you'd have to question whether or not conservatives are capable of possessing one. Many of the commenters say something along the lines of not liking being lied to, programmed, etc. Yet they watch Fox, whose tendency to misinform its viewers has been well-documented. Even Mr. Wells (who states he rarely watches cable news) takes a shot at MSNBC's credibility, but provides no evidence to back up his claim.
Finally, I have a question for the conservatives who read this post. How has Fox News' ratings dominance benefitted the conservative movement? Other than lining the pockets of those who work there, what good has it done for your side? You're losing the same-sex marriage argument, you lost the healthcare debate, and you came up short in the last two presidential elections. For the righties who stick out their proverbial chests over the ratings of Fox News, do you like apples? How about these apples?!