The Internet Is Dragging Megyn Kelly For Calling Stephen Colbert A Failure
But given her own history, it didn't go well.
Kelly said on her show Friday that Colbert took The Late Show ― which was started by David Letterman ― and 'completely drove it into the ground.'
'He desperately wanted to be Keith Olbermann,' she said. 'And guess what? Keith Olbermann is a failure, and now so are you, Stephen Colbert.'
Kelly was a longtime host at Fox News, where she drew the ire of then-candidate Donald Trump during a Republican debate in 2015.
'You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes,' Trump infamously complained at the time. ' Blood was coming out of her — wherever.'
She later left Fox and signed a three-year $69 million deal with NBC, which included a Sunday night news magazine show and a third hour of the Today show called Megyn Kelly Today.
But she struggled in the ratings, and was taken off the air after she defended the use of blackface as part of Halloween costumes.
She apologized, but the show was canceled days later after a little more than a year on the air. NBC reportedly paid out her full contract.
After she left, the third hour of the Today show jumped in the ratings by 18%, NBC News reported at the time.
The feed on X (formerly Twitter) for Kelly's show posted her comments about Colbert ― and Kelly's critics fired back with some reminders of her own past:
Hmm. Let me get this right. @StephenAtHome @colbertlateshow had a successful 10-year run on CBS. @megynkelly failed MASSIVELY on NBC. In fact, she will go down as one of the biggest failures in media history. Didn't last 2 years, and they had to pay her $60M-plus. Be quiet, Megyn https://t.co/FfoHIhU8xq
— rolandsmartin (@rolandsmartin) July 20, 2025
@rolandsmartin/X / Via x.com
You might want to lighten up on the 'cautionary tale of failure' and do some self reflection before calling anyone else out.
— Dawn Young-McDaniel❌👑 (@justdawn_) July 20, 2025
@justdawn_/x / Via x.com
It is one of the most amazing acts of memory-holing in media history that Kelly pretends that she didn't sell out to NBC after Trump's first election (using her feud with him & saying she was apolitical), & then after she was fired there slowly became a leading MAGA influencer.😂 https://t.co/qefvtFgHzj
— John Ziegler (@Zigmanfreud) July 21, 2025
@Zigmanfreud/X / Via x.com
What happened when you went to NBC?
— Mark Banker (@themarkbanker) July 20, 2025
@themarkbanker/X / Via x.com
Alright, Megyn, let me lay it on the line for ya. You call Stephen Colbert . @StephenAtHome being a failure? Here's the score:
Colbert's been the undisputed heavyweight champ of late-night TV for years. He's been number one in total viewers and the key 18-49 demographic for…
— Human☮🇺🇸🇺🇦🇺🇸🌊 (@4HumanUnity) July 20, 2025
@4HumanUnity/X / Via x.com
If being fired/cancelled was the barometer for failure, someone should get Meg a mirror. https://t.co/R1rA6KRc0Z
— Mike Therien (@miketherien) July 20, 2025
@miketherien/X / Via x.com
Megyn, who had to crawl back into Trump's good graces after he insulted and humiliated her, calling someone else a failure? https://t.co/5LQ9Rz4QuL
— Rich (@RealRichWilkins) July 21, 2025
@RealRichWilkins/X / Via x.com
Megyn who? LOL The lack of self-awareness among this crowd is really something else. Colbert still has a hit show. As for Megyn… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ https://t.co/qZ7b9qld2J
— John Aravosis 🇺🇸🇬🇷🏳️🌈 (@aravosis) July 21, 2025
@aravosis/X / Via x.com
Like if Kid Rock said Springsteen's a failure.
— Chuck Throckmorton (@ChuckThrock) July 20, 2025
@ChuckThrock/X / Via x.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
21 minutes ago
- USA Today
Jon Stewart's 'Daily Show' rant turns ire to Paramount amid Colbert cancellation
Jon Stewart is coming to his old colleague's defense. The "Daily Show" host took a large chunk of his airtime Monday night to lament the cancellation of "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," a late-night comedy institution currently anchored by his longtime friend and political satire peer. Colbert got his big break on "The Daily Show" as a correspondent in the early aughts, working for Stewart before launching his own Comedy Central spinoff, "The Colbert Report." In 2015, Colbert took over CBS' "Late Show," replacing David Letterman and steering the show to ratings success. "Watching Stephen exceed all expectations in the role, and become the No. 1 late-night show on network television, has been an undeniable great pleasure for me as a viewer and as his friend," Stewart said during his July 21 monologue. Stephen Colbert's life and career, from 'Daily Show' to 'Late Show' cancellation He then turned his ire to CBS and its parent company, Paramount, which also owns Comedy Central. The decision to cancel the "Late Show," the company said in a statement, was "purely financial." Some in the industry have cast doubt on that claim, however, arguing instead that it may be the result of political kowtowing. Paramount is seeking the FCC's approval for a proposed $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media. Stewart falls firmly in the camp of skeptics. "Now, I acknowledge losing money. Late-night TV is a struggling financial model. We are all basically operating a Blockbuster kiosk inside of a Tower Records," he joked. "But when your industry is faced with changes, you don't just call it a day. My God! When CDs stopped selling, they didn't just go, 'Oh, well, music, it's been a good run.' "I believe CBS lost the benefit of the doubt two weeks prior," Stewart added, "when they sold out their flagship news program to pay an extortion fee to said president." His comments reference a large settlement Paramount paid in response to a defamantion lawsuit from President Donald Trump. The company forked over $16 million in response to a suit that accused "60 Minutes" of editing an interview with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris. USA TODAY has reached out to Paramount for comment. "If you're trying to figure out why Stephen's show is ending, I don't think the answer can be found in some smoking gun email or phone call from Trump to CBS executives, or in CBS' QuickBooks spreadsheets on the financial health of Late Night," Stewart said, crescendoing his monologue on a more serious note. "I think the answer is in the fear and pre-compliance that is gripping all of America's institutions at this very moment – institutions that have chosen not to fight the vengeful and vindictive actions of our pubic hair-doodling commander in chief," he said. "This is not the moment to give in. I'm not giving in! I'm not going anywhere – I think."
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
The Great State Government Return-to-Office U-Turn
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) banned remote work for state employees in March. By June, he was signing a bill that allowed it again. This stunning reversal in just three months tells you everything you need to know about the new reality of government work. The Texas about-face isn't an isolated incident. It's part of a fascinating pattern playing out in state capitals across America, where rigid return-to-office mandates are collapsing under the weight of economic reality and employee resistance. What started as executive orders demanding compliance has evolved into nuanced negotiations that treat office attendance as currency. California's Gavin Newsom escalated from two-day to four-day office requirements, only to watch unions trade away salary increases to keep their flexibility. Indiana's new governor included 'limited exceptions' in his return-to-office order from Day 1, signaling that negotiation had always been the endgame. The numbers driving these reversals are impossible to ignore. When California saved $700 million by downsizing office space and Texas discovered that remote work actually boosted productivity while slashing turnover, the economic argument for forcing everyone back to their desks evaporated. This transformation reveals a new playbook in which location has become as negotiable as salary. The speed of Texas's reversal deserves closer examination. When Abbott issued his executive order in March banning telework for state agencies, he positioned it as a matter of principle. State workers needed to be in state buildings, he said, serving Texans directly. The rhetoric was forceful, the timeline immediate. Yet within weeks, the facade began cracking under operational strain. State agencies that had already downsized their physical footprints suddenly faced the prospect of scrambling for office space. Parking lots that had been decommissioned would need resurrection. And employees who had restructured their lives around remote work began polishing their resumes for private-sector opportunities. The bipartisan rebellion that followed wasn't driven by ideology but by data. Texas's own productivity study showed that remote work hadn't just maintained service levels — it had actually improved them while dramatically reducing employee turnover. When Republican Rep. Giovanni Capriglione introduced House Bill 5196 to let agencies set their own remote policies, he wasn't making a statement about worker rights. He was acknowledging mathematical reality. Abbott's signature on the bill in June represents more than a policy reversal. It's an admission that top-down mandates can't override bottom-up economics. But while Texas stumbled into reversal through legislative intervention, California's governor appears to be playing a more sophisticated game. His journey from two-day office requirements to a four-day mandate might look like escalation, but the emerging pattern suggests something more strategic. When the Professional Engineers in California Government secured their one-year reprieve from the four-day requirement, they paid for it with salary concessions. Days later, the attorneys' union struck a remarkably similar deal. Newsom's mandate created leverage where none had existed before. SEIU Local 1000's lawsuit challenging the order cites the state's savings of 'at least $700 million' from office downsizing — money that would evaporate if 95,000 hybrid workers actually showed up four days a week. The California Department of General Services has shed 1.2 million square feet of Sacramento office space, a 14 percent reduction that represents real taxpayer savings. Reversing that efficiency would require a real estate shopping spree at precisely the moment California faces a $12 billion budget deficit. The genius lies in how the mandate functions as a negotiating tool. Unions that might have held firm on salary increases suddenly found themselves trading compensation for commute time. The Professional Engineers accepted mandatory unpaid time off that effectively negates their 3 percent raise for two years. In both cases, the unions prioritized flexibility over pay, revealing just how valuable remote work has become to their members. These reversals illuminate a broader transformation in how governments value physical presence versus actual productivity. When Gallup research indicates that flexible work arrangements can cut attrition by 50 percent, and when replacing skilled professionals costs between half and twice their annual salary, the mathematics of mandatory office attendance stop adding up. Indiana's new governor, Mike Braun, seems to be taking notes from both states with his executive order requiring state workers back by July 2025 but leaving 'limited exceptions' for ongoing negotiations. For public-sector unions, this new reality requires strategy. The California engineers and attorneys who accepted pay concessions to maintain remote work flexibility made a calculated bet that their members value time and autonomy over marginal salary increases. They are establishing that workplace flexibility has become a fundamental term of employment that can't be altered by executive fiat. The return-to-office reversals sweeping through state governments represent acknowledgments that the fundamental nature of work has changed. We are witnessing the emergence of a new employment paradigm where location flexibility has become as negotiable as wages and benefits. The smart leaders are those who recognized that physical presence has become a bargaining chip, valuable precisely because employees prize flexibility so highly. Rather than squander political capital on unenforceable mandates, they are trading flexibility for concessions that actually improve their states' fiscal positions. The organizations that thrive will be those that recognize flexibility not as a perk to be revoked, but as a strategic asset to be thoughtfully deployed. Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored the best-seller' Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.'
Axios
21 minutes ago
- Axios
Seattle city attorney candidates clash over crime policy
A competitive four-way race pits Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison against three challengers who say her approach is too punitive and fails to address the root causes of crime. Why it matters: The Aug. 5 primary will decide which two candidates move on to the November general election. Context: The city attorney prosecutes misdemeanors and helps shape the city's criminal justice policies, while representing the city in civil cases. State of play: Davison, who was elected in 2021, faces three opponents, all running to her left. Although the city attorney role is nonpartisan, Davison ran for statewide office as a Republican in 2020. All of her opponents identify as Democrats. Zoom in: Former U.S. assistant attorney Erika Evans left her job as a federal prosecutor earlier this year, citing opposition to Justice Department changes under President Trump. Nathan Rouse, a public defender who previously worked in private practice, has made ending cash bail for low-level offenses a key piece of his campaign platform. And Rory O'Sullivan, who represents workers seeking unemployment benefits, says his work on Seattle's Democracy Voucher program and successful ranked-choice voting push show he can help deliver big reforms. What they're saying: All three challengers disagree with Davison's 2023 decision to shut down Seattle's community court, which offered people resources and a chance to get their cases dismissed. They've emphasized the need for additional services — such as housing and drug treatment — to help reduce recidivism. They also have criticized Davison's push to create "stay out" zones that ban people accused of prostitution or drug offenses from certain areas, calling the policy ineffective. The other side: Davison said her efforts have helped "eliminate open air drug markets" and combat sex trafficking, particularly on Aurora Avenue North. Between the lines: While campaigning, Davison has emphasized ways she's opposed Trump, including joining a lawsuit over the administration's threats to cut funding to cities that don't comply with federal immigration enforcement. The big picture: It's unusual to have a four-way primary race that's this competitive, political consultant Crystal Fincher told Axios. All three challengers are credible and "could have a really good shot" at beating Davison in the general election, she said.
