Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About The Reliable Source  |  On Twitter: Reliable Source  |  E-mail: Amy and Roxanne  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed
Posted at 8:00 PM ET, 11/23/2010

Will Megyn Kelly GQ photos cause as much fuss as Diane Sawyer's Vanity Fair cover?

By The Reliable Source

Megyn Kelly in the December 2010 issue of GQ (Alexei Hays/GQ); the infamous Diane Sawyer cover of Vanity Fair, September 1987

The newswoman posed in a fetching black dress, shoulders bared, glancing flirtatiously from behind a tousle of blonde hair. And everyone went berserk.

"Pure cheesecake," said the New York Daily News. "Steamy," declared the Oregonian. And from many quarters, concern she was undercutting her credibility.

"However pleasing she may be to the eye," declared a Washington Post colleague, "why does a respected professional surrender to the urging that she pose for come-hither photographs?"

Megyn Kelly in the new GQ? Heck, no. Who knows what they'll be saying in coming days about the Fox News anchor's astonishing photo shoot? The uproar described above was set off in September 1987, when Diane Sawyer posed for a Vanity Fair cover that now seems demure, even dignified, with the hindsight of 23 years. History will reflect that she went on to become anchor of ABC World News.

Back to Kelly. GQ informs us that's not actually a dress but "Slip by Dolce & Gabbana. Bra by Agent Provocateur." In her Q&A in the December issue, she says yeah, the glass table on Fox's set shows off her legs: "It's a visual business. People want to see the anchor." She doesn't like the word "feminist" because "there is a message that if you are sexy and you acknowledge that. . . then it's somehow an affront to women."

By The Reliable Source  | November 23, 2010; 8:00 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Love, etc.: Jennifer Jason Leigh and Noah Baumbach divorce
Next: Five months is plenty of time to plan Wills and Kate's wedding

Comments

Bad move on Megyn Kelly's part. Seems as if she let the "she's hot" narrative go to her head a bit. Hot for TV newsreader is not the same as "hot" for a model or actress, so trying to emulate actual hotties makes her pale by comparison. There is also a big difference between sexy and downright slutty. There's nothing about these photos that say "smart and pretty" -- more like desperate and insecure. Megyn Kelly has officially jumped the shark. (and what's with all the hair extentions? Megyn -- there are plenty of photos of you before you headed to NY where we can all see you have shorter, very thin/fine hair. Nothing wrong with that, it's just that we all know...) Diane Sawyers photo was elegant and classy by comparison.

Posted by: cougar49 | November 24, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Kelly said: " She doesn't like the word "feminist" because "there is a message that if you are sexy and you acknowledge that. . . then it's somehow an affront to women."

No what's an affront to women is her thinking she's sexy :)

Posted by: rlj611 | November 24, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I'm not saying that Megyn isn't an attractive woman, but am I the only one who thinks she's suffering from a case of "man-face" in that picture? Specifically, I think she looks like Nick Stahl (Terminator 3, Carnivale) with heavy eye-liner in that picture. Just sayin'....

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001763/

Posted by: klaw009x | November 24, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Seems careless that she wouldn't have had her roots touched up before a shoot for a major fashion magazine, just sayin'! The photo evokes a bar skank trying to get dressed and get out before you wake up.
She has kind of a Carol Joynt before she od'ed on botox thing going on here...

Posted by: SoCali | November 24, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

When Megyn first started working at FOX in DC she covered a Bush inaugrual ball (where the focus should be on the First Couple and the guests) and she wore a VERY skimpy red gown that was downright tasteless for a reporter -- And not what any female guest at any inaugural ball would wear either. (More Vegas showgirl.) So this was apparently her M.O. all along -- get ahead by taking it off -- and she was letting Roger Ailes (and Brit Hume?) know from the get go that she was willing -- very willing -- to do whatever it takes to get ahead. So these GQ photos are actually not the first time Megyn Kelly has shown up half naked for a camera in order to get attention and further her career.

Posted by: cougar49 | November 24, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

"Bad move on Megyn Kelly's part. Seems as if she let the "she's hot" narrative go to her head a bit. Hot for TV newsreader is not the same as "hot" for a model or actress, so trying to emulate actual hotties makes her pale by comparison. There is also a big difference between sexy and downright slutty. There's nothing about these photos that say "smart and pretty" -- more like desperate and insecure. Megyn Kelly has officially jumped the shark. "
Posted by: cougar49 | November 24, 2010 10:35 AM

Meowwwwww!

You wish you looked half as good, even 25 years ago.

Posted by: Wiley_One1 | November 24, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

She's one ugly woman.

Posted by: 7900rmc | November 24, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

To the ladies offended by bare shoulders; my dear delicate creatures, women were created by God to be attractive to men...bare shoulders and all. Why this bothers some women escapes me. Men appreciate girls, women, I'm a man, I like girls, women, I find that part of the joy of life. Stop raining on everyone else's parade and try to accept and enjoy. You'll find life much more charming.
P.S SO WHATS WRONG WITH EXPOSED ROOTS, UNLESS YOU'RE TALKING OF TEETH?

Posted by: graurog | November 28, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company