There was a range of prickly reaction to my Megyn Kelly profile, which was published last week at the exact same time she was broadcasting that dumb segment on Santa (it's made her the butt of jokes, though I do believe the joke will ultimately be on us). Gawker and NewsBusters linked to the piece, which meant that I got e-mails from people who know more than I do, about everything, especially Megyn Kelly. Here are two such e-mails:
"Get a life!! You can't stand it that there are actually smart and attractive women out there who don't agree with your liberal agenda."
"I didn't think those right-wing celebrity puff pieces in the Style section could get any more nauseating until I read your little pile of cat sick this morning."
Then this from a fellow reporter who seemed to get what I was doing:
"That lead today was so excellent, and then it just kept getting better."
And, despite its use of the inaccurate word "praise," the most substantive criticism I received via e-mail was this:
"I do think that some of the methods you used in the article were too clever by half. ... positive elements of Megyn Kelly were portrayed with explicit and succinct statements of praise ('telling'), whereas negative elements were portrayed indirectly ('showing')."
But my favorite critical e-mail said much more in fewer words:
"I guess if 2.5 million watch her, 317.5 million don't, right?"