Don Lemon vs. Megyn Kelly: When Media Accountability Collides With the Outrage Economy

In the crowded and polarized world of American media, personalities often become the story as much as the news they cover. This week, former CNN anchor Don Lemon reignited a simmering feud with ex-Fox News host Megyn Kelly, leveling some of his harshest words yet.

Speaking on Mixed Signals (Semafor Media) on August 25, 2025, Lemon declared:

“Megyn Kelly has made a business out of being a troll and a racist. I’m not getting in the dirt with her. You lie down with dogs, you get fleas. Finally, I had to call her out for her misogyny and her racism, her trolling.”

The statement lit up social media feeds, cable chyrons, and podcasts almost instantly. For supporters, it was a courageous act of calling out a powerful figure. For critics, it was just another chapter in what some call the “outrage economy” that dominates modern media.

A feud with history

This is not the first time Lemon and Kelly have clashed. Back in February 2025, when MSNBC dismissed host Joy Reid, Kelly celebrated Reid’s exit on her podcast, calling her “the absolute worst person on television.”

Lemon responded with a fiery YouTube rant that went viral. In it, he told Kelly to “Go f– yourself” and described her as both a “troll” and a “racist.” He also reminded audiences of her past controversies, including a 2018 defense of blackface on NBC’s Today show and her infamous remarks about Santa Claus being white.

The feud cooled temporarily, but Lemon’s latest broadside has brought it roaring back, drawing in observers from both the political and entertainment spheres.

Outrage as brand strategy

Lemon’s critique goes beyond personal insult. It points to a broader phenomenon: the monetization of outrage.

He suggests that Kelly has deliberately made controversy her business model. By amplifying provocative takes on race, gender, and culture, she keeps her brand relevant in a fragmented media landscape.

Ironically, Lemon himself benefits from the same cycle. Since his departure from CNN in 2023, his independent ventures have thrived on candid, often confrontational commentary. The dynamic raises a difficult question:

Are both figures genuinely fighting for principles—or are they locked in a mutually beneficial theater of outrage?

The race and gender dimension

Lemon’s accusations cut along two of America’s deepest cultural fault lines: race and gender.

On race, Kelly’s comments on blackface and Santa Claus continue to shadow her reputation. Lemon frames her pattern as not just careless speech but a recurring exploitation of racial flashpoints for attention.
On gender, he argues that Kelly undercuts her own position as a supposed women’s advocate. She has frequently attacked other women—Joy Reid, Kaitlan Collins, Taylor Swift, Selena Gomez—sometimes with language that Lemon calls misogynistic.

This framing puts Kelly in a contradictory position: a woman who often profits from belittling other women, and a broadcaster who claims to be blunt while repeatedly inflaming racial tensions.

Media accountability—or spectacle?

The deeper debate is whether Lemon’s call-out represents accountability or spectacle.

On one hand, he insists that breaking character was necessary. In his words, “Someone had to stand up. It was out of my character, but you can’t let that kind of rhetoric slide.”

On the other hand, critics argue that by engaging Kelly so directly—and so harshly—Lemon gives her exactly what she seeks: publicity and controversy.

The cycle is familiar: one host provokes, another responds, the clips go viral, and both benefit in terms of reach and revenue. In this sense, the clash says as much about media incentives as it does about personal animosities.

Independent media and reinvention

Both Lemon and Kelly embody the new age of independent media personalities.

Kelly, once a Fox News star and NBC hire, reinvented herself through SiriusXM and her own digital platforms. She no longer needs mainstream networks to maintain influence.
Lemon, ousted from CNN in 2023, has shifted toward podcasting, YouTube, and guest appearances, cultivating an audience that values his blunt authenticity.

Their feud underscores how personal branding now often supersedes institutional affiliation. In the 2020s, a single viral clash can build—or rebuild—a career.

Public reaction and media polarization

The audience response is predictably polarized.

Supporters of Lemon praise him for naming racism and misogyny directly, arguing that silence would only normalize harmful speech.
Fans of Kelly dismiss Lemon’s critique as grandstanding, pointing out his own controversies at CNN and framing him as bitter about his fall from mainstream cable.
Neutral observers worry that the substance of issues—racism, sexism, and representation—is getting lost in the theater of personality clashes.

In a fractured media environment, every feud becomes another litmus test for partisan identity.

What this reveals about our media culture

At its heart, the Lemon–Kelly clash illustrates three truths about media in 2025:

Conflict drives clicks – Outrage and insult spread faster than nuance, incentivizing hosts to escalate rather than resolve.
Personalities eclipse platforms – Independent voices now rival legacy networks, meaning feuds between individuals carry more weight than corporate rivalries.
The stakes are cultural, not just personal – Issues of race, gender, and power remain unresolved in American public life, and media fights often become symbolic battlegrounds.

Don Lemon’s latest attack on Megyn Kelly forces us to confront uncomfortable questions. Does calling out racism and misogyny matter, even if it fuels the very cycle of outrage critics decry? Or do such clashes distract us from the underlying issues by turning real debates into spectacles?

What’s clear is that both Lemon and Kelly know exactly what they’re doing. Each understands that in today’s media economy, conflict is currency. And whether you applaud Lemon for speaking truth or criticize him for amplifying Kelly’s brand, one thing is undeniable:

This feud is not just about two TV hosts—it is about the media ecosystem that rewards outrage more than solutions.