No News Is Good News

The Cable Gamer doesn’t know who won the race to be first to trash Megyn Kelly’s Trump interview, but one T. Beckett Adams from the Examiner is certainly in the running. He had to be in the vanguard of the cool bunch who immediately dismissed it as devoid of news value:

But for some reason, Mr. Adams turned around and wrote two separate stories about this no news interview. They are both prominently featured on his Examiner index page, one of them imploring readers to WATCH:

Screen Shot 2016-05-18 at 11.24.05 PM

And that’s good news for Mr. Adams who was off and running promoting his news stories about the interview that had no news:

A T. Becket Adams story with WATCH in capital letters, tweeted out twice (so far), that’s about Trump’s twitter habits? Why does that sound familiar?

“No news” to T. Becket Adams on twitter becomes news to T. Becket Adams at the Examiner, and then gets promoted by T. Becket Adams back on twitter. There’s a moral in there somewhere, and The Cable Gamer invites you to find it.

AXIOMATIC UPDATE: Mr. Adams continues to rail on twitter:

Only that’s not true. Ms. Kelly targeted “many/some” critics for bias. Adams claims she said “only biased people” would criticize her interview. Why misrepresent what she said? Just for “likes” on twitter? Disappointing, but not surprising—hypocrites are by definition dishonest.


  1. notfoxy

    Come on, you know he was referring to the fact that Trump didn’t make any news. That’s separate from the story of the interview, which ended up being news as a result of Kelly’s performance, not Trump’s. That media news story extended when she chose to respond to critics Wednesday. I’m going to assume you just felt like taking a shot at Beckett, because I know you understand the distinctions I’ve presented.


  2. Tom Bennett

    Conservative T. Becket Adams’ dismissal of Megyn’s interview as being “devoid of news value” sure sounds like the voice of an unhappy Ted Cruz supporter who wanted a total take down.

    Which, by the way, partially undermines the comments last night by Howard Kurtz and Megyn Kelly that much of the criticism was coming from “the scourge of many of those in the MSM.”


    • notfoxy

      I don’t think anyone was expecting or asking for “a total takedown.” People like me are being told this, then being scolded for “not getting what I wanted.” What Becket is saying is the segment was so softball as to be essentially worthless. I agree, and I think it’s ridiculous for this criticism to be treated by Ms. Kelly as anti-Trump or anti-Fox. That’s a cheap dodge away from legitimate criticism of a weak interview.


      • notfoxy

        I love how you presume being against Trump’s candidacy is the sole reason someone would think Megyn’s interview was weak. Are you 12?


  3. notfoxy

    I’m sitting through the whole interview again. What’s bizarre is how little “Megyn Kelly” showed up. She has an intense personality with a lawyer’s skill for interrogation, and none of that is here. She’s robotically presenting criticisms to Trump, then sits there while he explains them away. Then there’s the bizarre grinning over “bimbo”. The impression left is that she went for the Walters/Oprah-style celebrity interview about feelings, but didn’t realize you still have to challenge the answers. The ultimate crime for this entertainment special is that it was boring.


    • Tom Bennett

      Did it have a little bit of People magazine quality? I suppose many thought so.

      I suspect MK had some of the following objectives (some of which she has directly or indirectly conceded):

      • Prove to Fox-TV as well as ABC/NBC/CBS that she has the skill to do so-called ‘celebrity’ interviews.
      • Put the Trump-Kelly feud to rest.
      • Stop or greatly minimize the Trump twitter-storm against her.
      • Lay the groundwork for future appearances on the “Kelly File” by Trump, as well as supporters, advisors and family members.
      • Try to win back some of her lost viewers who stopped watching after the August debate because they didn’t think she was fair.
      • Promote her upcoming book set for release in November — but after the election.

      Much of the hardball questions critics complained were sorely missing have already been asked. And we all know how little success they had.

      My guess is that she and Bill Geddie made a calculated decision that this was not the place for a hard-edged interview.

      I can understand why. But many critics seemed to disagree,


      • notfoxy

        You don’t go ‘celebrity lite’ to the point of boredom with the very controversial presumptive nominee who abused you for 9 months. It’s an insult to the viewers, and Barbara Walters wouldn’t have put up with it. As I’ve said I didn’t expect “total takedown”, but this played like an infomercial with an ex CNN anchor who sets up the questions, them the product guy “explains” while the host sits there like an idiot. Megyn Kelly can claim “haters” all she wants, but that was a terrible interview. The whole show was boring.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s