You can be an eccentric maverick and a white guy in journalism, having all sorts of shocking opinions. No problem. But not if you are a woman.
A woman must be a Stepford airhead who says nothing but acceptable things as you slobber over certain A-list people.
Megyn Kelly is not having an easy time of it in the mainstream news mausoleum.
Shame on you, Megyn! says the celebrity reporter!
The press do not like those they cannot pigeon-hole, and Kelly does not fit with the other news androids.
According to the marching orders scripted narrative, she is feuding with Jane Fonda over plastic surgery.
That has nothing to do with it. Jane Fonda is someone who benefitted from good old fashioned nepotism, and then when the sheltered princess did something in Vietnam, she discovered something called reality.
If she weren't Henry Fonda's daughter, her career would have been over. No fitness empire. No marriage to Ted Turner, founder of CNN, and no career resurrection.
Megyn Kelly asked a question that was rude, but true journalism is rude. You do not suck up or kiss up. You ask impertinent questions.
She did ask an impertinent question, but not as far-fetched as it has been portrayed. Hollywood is an industry built on hypocrisy. British actors, for instance, male and female, have all sorts of lines, wrinkles, folds, and pudge, and they just own the screen.
American actors look like they have been pickled in some plastic. Their faces cannot move. They are all anorexic with silicon bags that we are supposed to construed as breasts.
They all have frozen gummy scowls that they assure us, are happy smiles. The glassy looks in their eyes tell us the rest.
And yet, Hollywood celebrities are constantly lecturing the public how to think and what to do, but when it comes to their own personal lives, they keep it hidden.
When the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke out, we learned that Hollywood is some sort of sanctioned rape zone: molest and assault whoever you can corner, and they will keep quiet as they strut on the red carpet and smile that frozen, disingenuous smile.
And the little people cheer this on.
I'd ask every celebrity about their plastic surgery. I'd ask about their drug use. I'd ask who they had to sleep with to get their jobs, or who they forced to sleep with them to have those jobs.
I'd ask if they got the job because mommy and daddy knew someone in the industry.
I'd ask how much money they were really making.
Because here are a group of people who are seen as role models and paragons of success, and I'd want to paint an accurate and realistic picture of who these people are, warts and all.
If every woman who was an actress was sexually assaulted one time or another on the job, thats not a minor thing.
That's a crisis.
If every actor and actress has to go under the knife to keep a job, that too, is not a minor thing.
So Kelly's horrific and ugly question was not actually terrible.
But journalists love to either kick emotionally weak actors when they are down, or slobber all over them when they are famous.
Daytime news is just advertising and cheerleading.
Kelly is a poor fit here because the pseudo-newspeople on daytime are supposed to have frozen smiles and fawn all over celebrities.
And then tell America that is this real news.
No, it isn't. It is advertising.
So when Kelly defended herself because her majesty Jane Fonda took a jab at her, she was within her rights to do so.
If Fonda's daddy wasn't Henry, she wouldn't be hired to press down on a Slap-Chop in an infomercial.
So I don't care what the Stepford women on any daytime program have to say about Megyn.
She is different. She is well-educated, for one.
She is not typical in behaviour or thought, and that's her problem.
In a profession with mindless drones all marching to the same script, she stands out because she isn't one of them.
Which is a blessing.
The ratings reflect the fact that NBC is incapable of veering one jot off the beaten path.
Do I agree with Kelly? No, but so what?
My bookshelves, for instance, have a lot of books, but their perspectives and points of view are so different that there is no unifying narrative to sum them up.
I don't agree with most of those books. But life is not about getting validation for every thought that pops into your head.
I am ideologically tolerant.
I want to discover all the deepest truths in the universe, and that means keeping both an open mind -- and an open heart.
That doesn't mean I don't ask rude questions. You have to ask rude questions because I know as a journalist that people hide truths behind positive and sunny spin.
If Kelly were a man, she'd be a legend for her outrageous thoughts. She'd be celebrated for taking peculiar risks and saying things that made people gasp.
But journalism has always been a petty and sexist small-minded profession that doesn't have the guts or the vision to embrace reality or truth.
And I am saying this as the author of OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism.
It is not as if I have any love for the FNC or their alumni.
But the attacks on Kelly have nothing to do with anything else other than the fact that in Western society, women must all behave in the exact same way.
That's why #MeToo is more misogynistic than it first appears.
The rig ultimately benefits aggressive and cunning men: once they figure out how these single entity functions, they only need a single campaign to dismantle it.
Women are trained since birth to be followers: follow fashion, whether you buy the same purse as the actress on the red carpet...or dye your hair the same purple hue...or get the same tattoo...you are expected to follow.
And Kelly isn't a follower.
Men who break from the pack are seen as alpha heroes.
Women who do the same are seen as villains.
And that Kelly is getting a patronizing drubbing by the press exposes the superficiality of their #MeToo-ism, and how nothing in journalism has changed.
Nothing at all.