Dan Zak is the Chuck Norris and Jean Claude Van Damme equivalent of Megyn Kelly writers. The Washington Post style blogger did one heck of a piece describing the Fox News host recently, telling readers how her "Jesus, Santa are white" detractors got it wrong because they refused to see she is a fair person, even if she made them mad about her white Santa comment. And now those critics have responded to him, proving him right. And since he can split a sentence like the muscles from Brussles can split his legs, he's having fun at their expense yet again--and making others laugh as he points out the error of those critics' ways.
Zak's "Megyn. Santa. Jesus" piece on Dec. 18 begins by reminding readers that he wandered into this fray quite by happenstance, but that the original Slate piece about the need for a black Santa (and the Kelly on-air response that followed) were just "tongue in cheek" from the two as far as his take was on it. So he didn't understand what all the brouhaha was about. Nevertheless, he let Kelly respond to her detractors after she became a target, thus earning himself a couple more critics of his own, as well as some supporters as well.
On the one hand, like the paratroopers that rode on Chuck Norris' head in his latest epic split video, Dan Zak is attempting to let his detractors write negative comments to his email account. And it is their opinion that he is aiding and abetting the conservative Fox show by putting out an image of Kelly that doesn't faze with liberals' opinion of her. He's even letting some of their comments make it into print. Like this one: "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."
And the Washington Post feature writer probably didn't know there were so many Shakespeare wannabes languishing away in obscurity in email accounts either. Everybody wants to be a smooth-talking Shakespear quoter now, eh? But not everyone has that midas touch. But one critic does laud Zak for having a silver tongue, even as he takes him to task for it: "I do think that some of the methods you used in the article were too clever by half..." Imagine that? A critic who compliments you before scewering you on the pit of ridicule. They go on to say, "...positive elements of Megyn Kelly were portrayed with explicit and succinct statements of praise ("telling"), whereas negative elements were portrayed indirectly ("showing"). OK, that emailer is a writer if there ever was one, obviously detailing his or her own tricks of the trade.
Keep writing Dan Zak, on Fox News' Kelly or anything else. You're fair and entertaining. And who doesn't need that in online articles?
The Kelly File hostess: Photo credit: TV Guide.com