When Megyn Kelly launched into an 11‑minute monologue on her SiriusXM show, it was more than a celebrity feud – it revealed tensions over credibility, media, activism and what it means to “do journalism.” Kelly’s target: George Clooney. Clooney, the Oscar‑winning actor, director and activist, had questioned Kelly’s credentials as a journalist and used his Broadway production of Good Night, and Good Luck as a platform to raise broader issues about the press. Kelly’s response? She accused him of “cowardice”, “naked partisanship” and worse.

This investigation explores what sparked the conflict, what each side says, what’s at stake, and what this says about celebrity, journalism and activism in 2025.

The comments that lit the fuse

The spark for the clash came during a conversation onActors on Actors (a Variety series) between George Clooney and Broadway star Patti LuPone. Clooney, promoting his Broadway adaptation of Good Night, and Good Luck, which examines legendary journalist Edward R. Murrow, said:

You see Megyn Kelly, who’s come out and said I’m not a journalist. I didn’t say I was a journalist.” And later: “I’ve at least been to Darfur and Sudan and the Congo and been shot at to try to get stories out. I’m not quite sure what she’s done to be a journalist.”

In other words, Clooney asserted that he has undertaken journalism‑style risk and reporting, and questioned Kelly’s claim to journalism. He also noted that his play uses her past words in a montage. Kelly’s camp interpreted this as a direct attack on her career.

Kelly’s response: sharp, personal and pointed

She said he “fancies himself a journalist … and has lots of thoughts on how journalists need to do journalism like he does it.”

She accused him of “stumbling upon the biggest story of the decade” – referring to his 2024 New York Times op‑ed urging President Joe Biden to step aside – “and then burying it, saying absolutely nothing for weeks on end … That’s not journalism, George. It’s cowardice followed by naked partisanship.”

She mocked his Broadway pivot: “What’s the matter, George? Are the Hollywood roles getting a little hard to come by as you age and get decidedly more smug and self‑congratulatory?”

She defended her own journalistic resume, listing major interviews and stories she says he ignored

Kelly also dismissed his claimed “shot at” reporting in conflict zones, saying:

You once had a gun pulled on you by a kid in Darfur more than 20 years ago. Only now … did you change it to getting shot at… That didn’t happen, George. This is not the kind of ‘truth’ and ‘integrity’ we want in our profession.”

Clooney’s positioning: activist, actor, occasional reporter

Clooney’s comment was not a full‑blown declaration of journalism, but it did emphasise his view that celebrity voices can matter in public discourse. His Broadway show ends with a montage including journalists (and Kelly), and he told Variety:

What we do … is talk about the responsibility of journalists to hold truth to power.”

Yet his critics (including Kelly) argue that advocacy and commentary don’t substitute for the grind of journalism: reporting, investigating, interviewing, holding power accountable in systematic ways.

Clooney’s July 2024 NYT op‑ed calling for Biden to step aside added fuel. Critics say he waited too long, that his piece was a celebrity stunt rather than a journalistic investigation. Kelly seized on this as evidence of partisanship rather than journalism.Deeper issues: credibility, journalism and celebrity activism

This feud is more than an insult match — it’s symptomatic of larger questions:

What constitutes journalism? Kelly claims the title, uninterrupted for decades, while Clooney suggests his experience in conflict zones qualifies him to assess media. The clash forces a discussion: Is journalism simply reporting, or is commentary/advocacy allowed?

Celebrity activism vs. journalistic integrity: Clooney brings star power to issues; Kelly questions whether that translates to accountability. Her use of terms like “naked partisanship” suggests concern with activists masquerading as reporters.

Timing and consistency: Kelly’s criticism of Clooney emphasises that speaking out late (after a debate misstep by a president) is not equivalent to consistent truth‑telling. In journalism, many would argue, consistency matters.

Public perception and platform power: The battle highlights how media personalities (Kelly) and celebrities with world‑views (Clooney) vie for influence on public trust. Kelly’s audience is conservative; Clooney’s platform is global and liberal.

Intersection of entertainment and journalism: Clooney playing Murrow on Broadway while lecturing on press freedom invites commentary on whether entertainers should give lectures on journalism. Kelly’s barbs about “weirdly dyed jet black hair” and “Hollywood roles getting a little hard” are provocative but symbolic of the entertainment‑versus‑journalism tension.

Public reaction and implications

Media outlets have covered the feud with interest, often highlighting Kelly’s raw tone and Clooney’s seeming incomprehension of being challenged. For example, FarOut Magazine described Kelly’s monologue:

He’s starring in a play … because Clooney fancies himself a journalist … He’s conspicuously smug and self‑congratulatory.”

Kelly’s platform also responded: she hounded the story with detailed critique and celebration of her own credentials. Clooney’s team has not publicly given a full rebuttal beyond standard PR silence.

For the broader public, the conflict raises questions of trust: which voices are credible, which motives are pure commentary, and how much celebrity activism overlaps with journalism. For the media industry, Kelly’s attack may energise conservative audiences; for Hollywood, Clooney’s challenge may remind actors of the scrutiny when they venture into commentary on serious institutional fields.

What’s next?

For now, the feud is unresolved. Kelly has invited Clooney to call her up personally:

You know what? He should call me up. I would love to talk to him about it. He’s obviously got thoughts on me, so let’s do that.”

It remains to be seen whether Clooney will engage, or whether both will simply continue on their respective platforms with the jabs continuing in the public sphere.

From a media‑watchdog perspective, this story may fade into celebrity off‑beat drama, or it could spark a larger reflection on the boundaries between journalism, commentary and celebrity. If a major news outlet were to dig in more deeply, the real question might become: Who ultimately holds credit for “telling truth to power,” and how is that validated?

Conclusion

In the end, the headline “Megyn Kelly savagely ridicules George Clooney for continuing to spew delusional ‘nonsense’” captures the tone of Kelly’s critique but simplifies the underlying debate. It is not simply about insults or ego: it is about journalism, activism, credibility, and the role of celebrity in public discourse.

Kelly clearly believes Clooney has drifted into pundit territory without doing the heavy work of reporting; she accuses him of partisanship, of delay, of lecturing from a platform rather than engaging in journalism‑first. Clooney, on his part, sees a role for celebrity in advancing journalistic values and holding power accountable—but invites challenge when he places himself in the role of the journalist.

For audiences, the takeaway may be to look critically at who claims to be a journalist, what work they actually do, and how their motives align with public interest. When a former Fox anchor and a Hollywood A‑lister clash this publicly, it’s less about who wins the verbal duel than what we learn about media, authority and trust.