Megyn Kelly Criticizes Rachel Maddow Over Her Remarks About MSNBC’s Leadership and Diversity Issues

In a fiery exchange that is making waves across the media, Megyn Kelly has sharply criticized Rachel Maddow for what Kelly sees as an inappropriate and disrespectful public monologue regarding her bosses at MSNBC, especially in the wake of Joy Reid’s departure from the network. Kelly’s critique, which aired in a recent segment, accuses Maddow of using sanctimony and self-righteousness to imply that the network’s leadership is racist, undermining her colleagues in the process.

The Fallout From Joy Reid’s Firing

The ongoing controversy at MSNBC centers around the recent firing of Joy Reid, a prominent anchor and host of The ReidOut. Reid’s departure has sparked a heated debate about diversity and inclusion at MSNBC, particularly given that Reid was one of the few non-white hosts in the network’s primetime lineup. The fact that two of the non-white prime-time hosts, Reid and Alex Wagner, were let go has fueled allegations of systemic racial issues within the network, especially in light of Rachel Maddow’s on-air comments.

In a dramatic monologue, Maddow lamented the departure of Reid, expressing her respect for her colleague and her disappointment in the decision. “There is no colleague for whom I have had more affection and more respect than Joy Reid,” Maddow declared, further claiming that Reid’s firing was a mistake. Maddow also highlighted the lack of diversity in prime-time positions at MSNBC, stating that both of the non-white hosts in prime-time were being let go, a situation she found “indefensible.”

Maddow’s comments, while emotionally charged, quickly attracted attention and criticism, particularly from Kelly, who did not mince words when addressing the situation.

Megyn Kelly’s Response: “Sanctimony” and “Self-Righteousness”

Kelly, known for her blunt and often controversial remarks, did not hold back in her criticism of Maddow’s public stance. In a passionate commentary, Kelly accused Maddow of exhibiting sanctimony, a term used to describe hypocritical or self-righteous moral superiority. Kelly argued that Maddow, in her effort to criticize MSNBC’s leadership, was stepping beyond the bounds of reasonable critique and displaying an unnecessary level of self-righteousness.

“What Rachel Maddow did was nothing short of rubbing her bosses’ faces in her disapproval,” Kelly said. She criticized Maddow for using her high-profile platform to publicly challenge the network’s decisions, especially regarding the firing of Reid. Kelly argued that Maddow, by accusing her bosses of racism, crossed a line by publicly disparaging the network she works for, something Kelly said would have resulted in swift consequences had it happened in a company she ran.

Kelly’s remarks emphasized the difference between expressing professional disagreement and taking to the airwaves to accuse a company of racism. “If one of my employees ever did this to me, I would fire them on the spot,” Kelly declared. She went on to highlight the contradiction in Maddow’s stance, noting that while she lamented the firing of Reid, Maddow herself was still benefiting from a lucrative contract with MSNBC. “You work for me. You don’t get to use my airwaves to rip on me,” Kelly argued, underlining her belief that Maddow’s behavior was unprofessional.

Maddow’s Criticism of MSNBC’s Diversity Practices

Maddow’s comments focused heavily on the issue of diversity, specifically the firing of non-white hosts at MSNBC. She pointed out that in a network with two non-white prime-time hosts, both were now losing their shows, an outcome she described as worse than “bad.” She implied that the decisions were racially motivated, arguing that these firings felt “indefensible,” no matter who replaced them.

Kelly, however, saw this as a convenient angle for Maddow to push a narrative of racial injustice while ignoring the larger context. Kelly questioned why Maddow, despite her claims of being an ally to diversity, was still working for a network she accused of perpetuating racial inequality. “If you really think it’s racist, then why are you still there?” Kelly asked, arguing that Maddow had ample financial security to leave MSNBC if she felt so strongly about the network’s practices.

The Bigger Picture: Media Ethics and Personal Accountability

At the heart of Kelly’s argument is the belief that public figures, especially those working in the media, should be held accountable for the way they use their platforms. Kelly took issue with Maddow’s public airing of grievances, claiming that instead of handling the situation privately with her bosses, Maddow chose to weaponize her platform to accuse MSNBC of racism. This, according to Kelly, only added to the dysfunction and disarray within the network.

Kelly further questioned Maddow’s sincerity, suggesting that her public criticisms were a form of self-promotion rather than genuine advocacy for change. “She wants to come off as the martyr, the one who’s speaking truth to power,” Kelly said, accusing Maddow of positioning herself as morally superior while ignoring her own complicity in working for a network with which she disagrees.

The debate also touches on the broader issue of media credibility. Kelly argued that both Maddow and Reid had played significant roles in diminishing MSNBC’s credibility. She noted Maddow’s role in pushing the “Russia collusion” narrative during the Trump administration, a storyline that was later heavily scrutinized and debunked. In Kelly’s view, Maddow’s insistence on being right—despite evidence to the contrary—undermined the trust that viewers placed in MSNBC.

Conclusion: A Controversial Clash Over Media Power

The clash between Megyn Kelly and Rachel Maddow is a vivid example of the tensions within the media industry, where loyalty to one’s network is often tested by personal convictions. Kelly’s response underscores her belief in professional responsibility and personal accountability, especially when it comes to using a powerful media platform for personal or political gains.

While Maddow’s comments may have been born out of genuine concern for the state of diversity at MSNBC, Kelly’s critique highlights the complexities of navigating such issues in the public sphere. As the media landscape continues to evolve, this ongoing debate serves as a reminder that when figures in the media accuse their employers or colleagues of wrongdoing, they must be prepared for the scrutiny that will follow, both from their peers and the public.