Skip to comments.Roger Ailes on Megyn Kelly Report: ‘All of Our Stars Will be Back’
Posted on 08/08/2013 12:42:24 PM PDT by Hojczyk
Fox News chairman and CEO Roger Ailes is being interviewed by Neil Cavuto at this hour in California at a 21st Century Fox investors conference.
The first question Cavuto asked was about the rumor, first reported on Drudge Report, that Megyn Kelly will me moving into the 9pmET timeslot this Fall. Generally, I dont confirm or deny any rumors, and that is a rumor at the moment, said Ailes, adding all of our stars will be back.
As for Hannity, who currently hosts the 9pm hour, Ailes said, Hannity is a brand that many of our viewers love and want to see, and, as you know, is one of the nicest guys in the building.
Ailes did say hes been having conversations with Shepard Smith about a new way to deliver news. This could mean a lot of things, including that Smiths 7pm timeslot is up for grabs.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediabistro.com ...
I agree. Judge Jeanine is the best of them.
Megyn is a social liberal. She is qualified mostly because of her blond hair and wide-set eyes. Social liberals — on marriage, pro-life, illegal immigration — are very hard to find at trashy Fox. The “Glee” starts with the reprobate at the top.
I remember the day Mark Steyn subbed for Rush. He hit a home run and after that day, if he wanted a radio show, he would have taken his shot.
I imagine he likes to be Rush’s go-to sub and doesn’t want to deal with five-day-a-week media nonsense.
Because he is witty/funny and smart as hell and can really take it to the commies.
I think that I’ve heard her expound on the lives of babies in the womb and castigate Dr. Gosnell of Philadelphia. That’s not too liberal. She seemed appalled at what he was doing to babies in his dirty clinic.
You can watch re-runs of Murder She Wrote, or Frasier, in that time slot. That’s what I do. I hate Red Eye, followed closely by The Five.
I accidentally posted under my husband’s screen-name. He speculated that Kelly may have 4 days & Hannity on Fridays with the focus groups.
My husband speculated that it may be Kelly 4 days & Hannity on Fridays with his focus groups.
They repeat Hannity, and they repeat O’Reilly.
Better to have fresh content, and a little different attitude from the stogy old standards, Hannity O’Reilly and Van Sustern.
I like the idea of Laura Ingraham taking over for O'Reilly___she is watchable/listenable plus much more conservative than any of the three mentioned.
Hannity cannot debate liberals. Often times, he ask a question, halfway listens to the answer and moves on with no comment about the answer-really bugs me. I think he’s a good person but he is getting tiresome. I do like his panels that he has had on lately-conservative blacks, for example.
(Can’t stop laughing!)
I think O’Reilly is an obnoxious know-it-all, but for some reason I like watching the show. I doubt they will take him off - he’s #1. He is, however, getting on. I think he’s 74.
Hannity seems to do more ranting than anything. Tiresome.
I would love to see Laura Ingraham, far more so than Megyn Kelly. I didn’t like her very much to begin with, but posing for GQ finished her off for me.
Shep is brutal - give him the heave ho. Would love to see Mark Steyn or Dennis Prager.
Yes, Hannity is probably a good person, and yes his panels are interesting. But he’s so full of himself that he’s become very difficult to watch. That goes double, or triple, for O’Reilly, although I’m not so sure he’s all that good a person in private...he’s just too damned rude to guests, and that probably carries over into his private life as well.
Incidentally, every time Hannity gets on an immigration roll on his radio show he singlehandedly sets back the GOP’s chance of ever winning the Hispanic vote. On his performance on that topic alone, I could justify never wanting him to appear on a conservative show again. He’s a complete disaster when it comes to understanding immigration and how to deal with the problem, and he always ends up sounding like he wants to send every Hispanic in the country back to his home country. (”Oh, but I don’t have anything against Hispanics” is his usual reply once he realizes he’s in too deep with his canned, regurgitated, rhetoric, but by that time it’s way too late.)
Yes, enforcing immigration law would be such a disaster. At least for the Treason Lobby, which you seem to belong to.
I have no sympathy for anyone that hs not learned to program their DVR.
FOX News is unwatchable with out Fast Forward, and the delete function.
Every ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMINAL should be sent back to their home country
Both “The Five” and “Red Eye” are examples of shallowness in the news industry. They both fill up time by having five people each take a small bite of a subject. Red Eye is the adolescent bite; The Five is a moderate’s bite, start in the middle and stay there.
That’s a pretty good take on such news shows.
Was that double entendre intended?
Not my quote but knowing this place like I do there is no doubt - 'twas intended.
Well, I like Megyn. Nothing tops a cute blonde with a brain, and good sense!
Show me where I said that immigration laws shouldn’t be enforced. After all, not enforcing them (and that includes Bush, by the way, in spades) is what led to the current mess.
It’s straightening out the current mess that’s the issue, and how to do it. Those of you who think we can back up twenty or so years and start over are the delusional ones.
When bad law enforcement leads to a bad outcome, you start by dealing with what you have, not by dreaming about what would have happened if there’d never been bad enforcement in the first place. There’s a real mess that needs undoing and the politics of doing it are going to be exceptionally complicated, as we’re seeing.
As for your “treasonous lobby” comment, I’m probably as conservative as you, just not a racist. Oh, you’re not a racist? Well, if you don’t like being called a racist on scant information, imagine how it feels to be called “treasonous” on even less. Grow up.
>>I have no sympathy for anyone that hs not learned to program their DVR.<<
Geez, people assume so much in here...
All I’m saying is that when I turn the TV on at night (to FOX) I’d rather not be looking at either Hannity or O’Reilly if I’m trying to catch up on what’s happening. You know, a quick ten minutes or so before going to a recorded show?
With different anchors, I might tend to stick around a bit longer, is all. The last thing I would do is pre-record a news program. Why let them sort out what I’m supposed to care about? That’s what got the country in such terrible shape in the first place...low information voters.
I hope none of this upsets Greta’a time slot.
I doubt Hannity is moving to a hard news slot so I gues shep is safe for the timebeing.
I sense Ingraham is being groomed for BOR’s slot if he ever leaves.
Oooh, you called me a racist!
Sorry I’m not impressed. That’s been the favorite swear word of Leftists for 50 years. I’ve heard it before. No surprise to see the treason lobby using it. I’m sure it’s not your first time.
“. Those of you who think we can back up twenty or so years and start over are the delusional ones.”
Funny, that’s the same crap the Treason Lobby was spouting back in 1994 when we passed Prop 187. You clowns are the Grima Wormtongues of politics, always whispering “just give up!”
The sad part for you is that patriots don’t give up. Patriots recognize a difference between Americans and foreign nationals who squat here illegally. And they take the side of their own country.
Well to be fair you know the difference, too: you just happen to be on the side of the invaders.
But take heart. Once the illegals win then what you do won’t be called treason anymore. You’ll be some sort of hero, in a Benedict Arnold fashion.
Poor lil Hannity must be throwing a temper tantrum. He’s not on tonight.
It’s easy for Megyn to be against the extreme things that Gosnell did. Many pro-choicers are, just to show that they love babies too. In addition, Megyn defends the Family Leave Act, which conservatives condemn as government red tape on business. She also says that children raised by homosexual couples and couples with working moms do just as well as couples with stay-at-home moms. Conservatives strongly disagree. See this link for more.
Well, she’s just defending her own decision to be a working-away-from-home mom, isn’t she? Does she have a house husband, or a nanny? You see a lot of that with young mothers. They are still learning how the world works.
At least she’s half way there. Not far enough, but half way is better than no way. People evolve over time. I had a couple of friends who used to vociferously defend the pro-choice way until I stood up to them and defended pro-life. They shut up quick, and now both of them claim to be pro-life. Only God knows what is in their hearts.
I own a small business. The Family Leave Act does not affect me at all. I don’t have to pay them when they are on leave — just promise to offer them a job when they come back, if one is available. Sort of like soldiers going to war (and we have those too). My experience has been that most of them never come back. We adapt and make room for them if they do. The same for those who have cancer, hysteractomies, broken legs, etc.
The Family Leave Act is not the hill to die on for conservatism and small business.
Thanks for your response. To your first point — Megyn should be home with the three kids — babies want mom most, not just for breast-feeding but mom is who they call for when hurt or lonely. Megyn should have figured this out by now, but obviously considers her feminism most important.
Your small business seems to handle family leave quite well. Congratulations to you! But the Family Leave law is a malignant welfare state burden on larger business, one of the many red tape rules that reduce employment and prosperity. It is a Western European, cradle-to-grave socialist type law. Megyn surely knows this, but once again, her feminism is most important.
I just couldn’t resist seeing what you were up to Norse and imagine my shock to see you having a row with one of my best pals here
Color me shocked I tell you
And danggit Norseman
Youre a 98er
Is nothing sacred anymore
Geez this is depressing
I have a close relative who has been in border patrol for 20 plus years and is disgusted to say the least with what is going on. Their hands are tied... there is no border anymore.
Interesting factoid about the 2.5 million granted amnesty before who were also given a greased path to citizenship along with that amnesty. (Again, legalization of residency, amnesty, and citizenship are three separate issues.)
60% of that 2.5 million never applied for U.S. citizenship, preferring to retain their citizenship in their country of origin, although they did remain here, and all of their children born here are now citizens.
One suggestion I’d have under a legalization bill would be to specify that any child born to a legal alien resident would not be granted automatic citizenship, but would take the citizenship of their mother. I don’t know if that requires a constitutional change though.
I think the GOP has an opportunity to turn things around here if handled properly. That’s because the Left is so determined to go for full citizenship that they won’t compromise. (I know, “compromise” is the nemesis here.)
That fact, and I think it will be proven a fact, makes it possible for the GOP to advocate a combination of solid border security along with legalization of residency with no path to citizenship for those who entered illegally unless they go to the back of a very long line. They might also be able to work in the change to citizen status of the children that I mentioned above, at least of those born after the law was passed.
This would probably find broad support among the illegal population who is here to work, although their “leaders” would rail against it from day one of course. But it would put the Dems in a position of denying legalization (which those here working want) because they couldn’t get citizenship (which after two decades, 60% of those who could get citizenship have decided they don’t want.)
I think, properly explained, and understood, this would put the GOP on the offensive on this issue. The end result would be that we know who’s here and why they’re here and would have the ability to set reasonable standards for entering the country legally, and for staying here a number of years.
As I’ve also said, Paul Ryan’s approach of taking up each of these issues separately is the best way to go, since it’s the only way to clearly separate the separate issues of border security, legalized residency, amnesty, and citizenship.
I could listen to Laura if she confined her questions to one sentence....but every time she asks her guest a question she delivers the Gettysburg Address before she gets to the point.
I still think it might be “Hannity & Kelly” at 9pm.
No, thanks. Can’t stand either of them.
More of Megyn Kelly everyday. Oh joy! :-)
She lost me at pro-homo....
Ailes is as slippery as Bill Clinton.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.