Megyn Kelly Says Working for NBC Was Not 'Intellectually Stimulating' and That She Didn't Want to Work For Another 'Old Guy'


By Cassandra Fairbanks

Television host Megyn Kelly has claimed that working for NBC was not “intellectually stimulating” and says that is part of the reason why she left.

Kelly also said that “having left Fox and left NBC the one thing I understood was I didn’t want to work for another old guy.”

The remarks were published in an interview with Business Insider, discussing her new deal with SiriusXM to host an afternoon radio show.

Kelly also compared working at NBC to her first marriage.

“I look at my career the same way I look at my relationship history. I had a first marriage that ended in divorce and the guy and I are still friends. Do I think it was a mistake to marry my first husband? I don’t. It’s all part of the journey that gets you to where you are,” she said. “That’s how I see my time at NBC. I don’t think you can say the time at Fox News was a mistake. If I hadn’t gone through it, I probably wouldn’t have developed some of the skills that I’m using now.”

Kelly added that working at Fox was so stressful that she “overcorrected” by being “too soft” at NBC.

“I had this soaring career at Fox that was great by any measure, but I was miserable at home. It was too stressful, too much time away from my family and my kids, and then I overcorrected at NBC by going too soft. To be perfectly honest, the job wasn’t intellectually stimulating for me, and now I feel like I have the best of both worlds. I’m fired up and making a difference.”

“The Megyn Kelly Show” on SiriusXM will begin airing daily on Sept. 7.

Kelly left NBC after a woke mob called for her head for commenting that it used to be OK to wear blackface on Halloween.

For corrections, please email corrections@timcast.com

*For corrections please email corrections@timcast.com*

22 responses to “Megyn Kelly Says Working for NBC Was Not ‘Intellectually Stimulating’ and That She Didn’t Want to Work For Another ‘Old Guy’”

  1. Kamil says:

    Wtf?

  2. hcarlb says:

    Does anyone have permission to read this?

  3. dpheitz says:

    Sounds interesting. 🙂 I’ll be back….

  4. Shannifin says:

    This article is broken still. Paying member here, you need to provide the content if you’re going to charge $$$.

  5. GoneWithTheBlastwave says:

    Could it be there is no content for the article. The title is the article. So we aren’t missing anything?

    Maybe the new site will let us see what is really here.

  6. Harveysson says:

    I’m getting the same message. What gives?

  7. potoole70 says:

    Explain why!

  8. SpuzzumJoe says:

    I’m a member and I don’t have permission to access the vid. That’s bullshit. Fuckin fix it Tim you fuckin mutt

  9. Bradmark1997@icloud.com says:

    I’m a paying member and it says I don’t have permission to view this article I’m only paying 10$ a month I hope that doesn’t have something to do
    With it

  10. Russ says:

    same problem

  11. Cleffy says:

    I can read the article. So I don’t know what everyone is complaining about.
    It says, “You do not have permission to view this content.”

  12. D34DB33F says:

    Get out of here! Are you telling me that [Television Celebrity]’s commentary on [Celebrity Television Network] isn’t worthy of our attention? I’ll bet you watch [Different Television Celebrity], you animal.

  13. cutter says:

    So even if I could read this article, my comment would be the same: This post is celebrity gossip / tabloid trash, the kind of story pushed by press agents to keep their clients in the news. Talk about “not intellectually stimulating.” Between this and the Britney/Elon post, it’s starting to look awful clickbaity ’round here. Just sayin’.

  14. joea says:

    I’m also a member without access

  15. Casey0430 says:

    Same as the other good souls here, I cannot view this content and I am a very loyal member.

  16. D34DB33F says:

    yall dont have permission because this content would literally blow your mind. timcast cant be held liable for exploding heads across the world. I know this because I’m an internet lawyer 9000

  17. WalterKovacs says:

    me too, no can read

  18. air4sone says:

    Is there a reason I don’t have access to this article?

  19. Crowefans says:

    same can not read article

  20. Patriot12 says:

    Same

  21. DischordantVibe says:

    Looks like we have a tech snafu

  22. mundy383 says:

    Is there a reason the site is telling me I do not have permission to view this article?

Please Login to post a comment