Amazon removes negative reviews of Megyn Kelly's memoir

By The Associated Press

 

SEATTLE (AP) — Amazon has suppressed a number of negative reviews of Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly's new memoir.

 

The Los Angeles Times reports more than 100 negative reviews of Kelly's "Settle For More" appeared on the online retail giant's site within hours of its release Nov. 15. The newspaper reports many of the comments came from a link from a pro-Trump Reddit forum.

 

Seattle-based Amazon removed some reviews from users it couldn't verify had purchased the book.

 

Company spokeswoman Angie Newman says in a statement that "Amazon Customer Reviews must be product reviews and are designed to help customers make purchase decisions."

 

Kelly and Republican President-elect Donald Trump had a contentious relationship during the campaign.

 

Publisher HarperCollins tells the Times it alerted Amazon to the reviews.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-11-24

I would be more than willing to give her a review.

 

 

Edited November 24, 20169 yr by khwaibah

When you become the news, you're no longer a journalist.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

She's a looker for sure.  But I wonder how many people would listen to the words coming out of her mouth if she looked like Walter Cronkite.  

 

An entire nation hung on his words. 

only people who have purchased a product should be allowed to post reviews , anything different would lead to fraudulent reviews and diminish the reliability of the system. 

Just now, sirineou said:

only people who have purchased a product should be allowed to post reviews , anything different would lead to fraudulent reviews and diminish the reliability of the system. 

 

True, but on the other hand, the vast majority of buyers will be fans already- and that leads to a different selection bias.

 

I agree with your statement, but I don't think there's been any proven method of getting untainted reviews on the interweb.  There are entire multi-million (billion?) dollar companies dedicated to building interweb reputations via the shortcut methods.

Trump and his oath of allegiance, no criticism, multiple gag clauses volunteers have a long history (even pre-internet) of harrassing journalists, by all means possible. who did not give Donald Trump the positive coverage he craves.

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

True, but on the other hand, the vast majority of buyers will be fans already- and that leads to a different selection bias.

 

I agree with your statement, but I don't think there's been any proven method of getting untainted reviews on the interweb.  There are entire multi-million (billion?) dollar companies dedicated to building interweb reputations via the shortcut methods.

You are absolutely right!!

and people should take review in websites with a grain of salt.

But that does not mean that we should not make an attempt to keep them as honest as possible, which is what I think Amazon is doing.

The story in this IMHO is not that Amazon is doing what they have  always and  prudently being doing, but the attempt of Kelly's foes to diminish her book and what she has to say. 

Amazon has the ability to identify verified purchases. If I were them, I'd have a policy of only allowing reviews by verified purchases for any and all books. This review stuff is an ongoing issue with anything political.

 

But hey, I'm just me and Jeff Bezos is an incredibly smart guy.

Yea she's a looker, she looks like she has Zachary disease.  Take a look at that face, what a shrew.  I'm sure a lot more people would listen to her if she did look like Walter.  Not many listen to her now.  About the only people that do listen to her are the anti-Trump losers.

No, she's a "journalist!" (Supposedly). She is/was a competent journalist. But when you're part of the story? Game changer.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

My new fav is Tucker Carlson at 7:00 am. Soon he will get no guests because he doesn't take prisoners.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

I don't know what Kelly's looks, or reporting ability has to do with This story, 

Or should I say Non Story.

5 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I don't know what Kelly's looks, or reporting ability has to do with This story, 

Or should I say Non Story.

 

You think there'd even be a story (or a high profile career to write a book about) if she looked like Walter Cronkite?

 

For all we know, removing the reviews may even be a marketing ploy to get more views on her book on Amazon.

8 hours ago, webfact said:

 

Read article. Saw Picture. 

 

Thoughts - "Smug"

23 minutes ago, inactiveposter said:

My new fav is Tucker Carlson at 7:00 am. Soon he will get no guests because he doesn't take prisoners.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

I always like Sam Donaldson for that reason. You could tell he was a liberal, but he didn't treat anyone, left or right, with kid gloves.

19 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I don't know what Kelly's looks, or reporting ability has to do with This story, 

Or should I say Non Story.

 

Well-said. I say she went after Trump for the publicity, is a publicity whore and thus untrustworthy as any sort of journalist. Oh and she came out and piled on Roger Ailes, babbling about how she didn't like the way he hugged her ten years ago? Seriously? Now, I don't say that to minimize Ailes being a pig. But this little this late? It reeks.

9 hours ago, webfact said:

The newspaper reports many of the comments came from a link from a pro-Trump Reddit forum.

 

Lol Reddit. 

 

Not gonna lie, that site is a superpower of people. 

 

The ole "Hug of Death" comes to mind.

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

You think there'd even be a story (or a high profile career to write a book about) if she looked like Walter Cronkite?

 

For all we know, removing the reviews may even be a marketing ploy to get more views on her book on Amazon.

You mean they themselves placed these negative reviews so that they can later induce Amazon to remove them and create publicity. 

I am no fan of Faux news and have no opinion on Kelly's journalistic abilities, but don't you think it is a bit sexist to connect her looks and career.

There are many attractive journalist on a visual medium such as TV, as it should be expected, both female and male. Do we make the same comparison with Male journalists Female viewers might find attractive ?

I think if we want to be critical we better concentrate on objective opinions rather than subjective.

 

8 hours ago, khwaibah said:

I would be more than willing to give her a review.

 

 

 

Me too, though of course it will take quite the "in-depth" interview beforehand. 

3 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

Well-said. I say she went after Trump for the publicity, is a publicity whore and thus untrustworthy as any sort of journalist. Oh and she came out and piled on Roger Ailes, babbling about how she didn't like the way he hugged her ten years ago? Seriously? Now, I don't say that to minimize Ailes being a pig. But this little this late? It reeks.

That's a fair criticism. It is quite possible that she has being calculating. 

Perhaps Ailes should write a book

Personally , I dont care. If I did care I would read the book, and then leave a review based on my understanding of what I read.

With all the good books available and my limited time for readding them, I think I will give this one a pass.

Wanted to reply, "3 kids, would be a room with a view at this point" but that would be inappropriate, much like her book, her piling on Ailes, her existence.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Just now, sirineou said:

That's a fair criticism. It is quite possible that she has being calculating. 

Perhaps Ailes should write a book

Personally , I dont care. If I did care I would read the book, and then leave a review based on my understanding of what I read.

With all the good books available and my limited time for readding them, I think I will give this one a pass.

 

Me too. I've seen her GQ pics. That's good enough for me. 

I wouldn't exactly call her a Pulitzer standard journalist - most of this week has been about promoting her new book - but it really isn't surprising that the chimps have been slagging her off on Amazon.

I wouldn't expect them to buy anything though, Pop Up and Colouring books excepted of course.

 

 

Awful woman....totally untrustworthy and devoid of integrity. 

 

Turned on trump when she thought it might boost her profile....then became all soft on him once he won. 

 

A snake.....bill o'reilly refused to even comment on her book....he cant stand her either. 

A post containing an aberrant misspelling of Trump's name and containing offensive comments as well has been removed. 

 

Some other nonsense posts have been removed as well. 

From what I've read elsewhere, the comments removed from the Amazon page are political attacks from the 'alt-right' crowd.  In other words, the supposed reviews had nothing to do with the book.

 

Anyway,  here is a photo of a younger Megyn Kelly:

 

 

 

2 hours ago, inactiveposter said:

My new fav is Tucker Carlson at 7:00 am. Soon he will get no guests because he doesn't take prisoners.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

You mean he doesn't take any prisoners in respect of his own bias. That trio in the morning is pathetic: fawning lapdogs and lickspittles all three of them, unable to engage is legitimate debate/discussion, lining up for mutual admiration and self congratulation, don't listen, talk over guests. Then they go out on the plaza for ludicrous games. The weakest link on Fox and should be severed.

Why would anyone spend money on a book written by that horrible aggressive woman?