Megyn Kelly and the Golden Globes make for an unlikely pairing in any conversation about awards and merit.
Yet that’s exactly the crossroads where Kelly found herself this week when she announced that The Megyn Kelly Show was withdrawn from consideration in the Best Podcast category of the newly minted Golden Globe Awards.
Instead of pursuing the honor, her team pulled the show — not because she wasn’t worthy, but because she saw something in the process that didn’t resemble an honor at all.
According to Kelly, the podcast was initially included on the list of 25 eligible shows for the inaugural award. However, she insists the show was never truly in the running because she refused to play along with the “dog and pony show” of campaigning for the attention of Golden Globes voters.
The process, as she described it, sounded less like recognition and more like begging for approval from a room full of decision-makers whose primary interest was spectacle over substance.
Kelly’s take on awards culture isn’t new — she grew up in broadcast under the old Roger Ailes ethos that awards, whether Pulitzers or Hollywood accolades, were largely a vanity exercise. She explained that participating would force her into self-promotion that felt antithetical to everything her audience tunes in for. Instead of chasing a trophy, she walked away.
Here’s where the debate gets interesting. Awards are supposed to celebrate excellence, not act as popularity contests for those willing to make the rounds on the so-called circuit to win votes. Yet that seems closer to the truth in this case, especially given the entertainment industry’s long history of self-referential back-slapping. If securing a nomination means engaging in social events, press rounds, and foot-kissing rituals designed to curry favor with an elite few, it begs the question: is it still an award for achievement or merely an accolade for networking?
Kelly’s critique taps into something many in media quietly feel but seldom articulate so bluntly. A distinction exists between earning recognition for quality work and hustling for praise from a crowd that may not even have listened to your show. The moment “look at me” becomes an unspoken requirement for legitimacy, the awards themselves lose their claim to honor.
Critics might argue that all awards require some degree of campaigning, that it’s part of the ecosystem. That may be true in Hollywood, where studios spend millions lobbying for statuettes. Still, that doesn’t make it right for a medium rooted in ideas, conversation, and substance — a medium that millions of listeners choose because it feels authentic. If podcasting becomes another space where winners are those with the best press strategy rather than the best content, we’ve lost something essential.
For many, Kelly’s withdrawal will look like sour grapes after a perceived snub. But what she’s really rejecting isn’t the Golden Globe itself; it’s the underlying assumption that podcasts must conform to Hollywood’s award-season playbook to be validated. Her stance pushes back against the idea that legitimacy is granted by institutions whose values don’t align with the ethos of independent, thoughtful media.
Awards should shine a spotlight on those deserving of it. They should uplift creators and their work. They shouldn’t transform into popularity contests where bending the knee to the culture that confers them is part of the entry fee. If that’s what the Golden Globes’ podcast prize devolves into, then Kelly walked away from something that never had real honor to begin with.
That’s not defeat. That’s clarity of purpose — and in an age of hollow accolades, it’s something worth defending.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. To stay updated, sign up for our newsletters and get the latest information delivered straight to your inbox.
Garrett Searight is Barrett Media’s News Editor, which includes writing daily news stories, features, and opinion columns. He joined Barrett Media in 2022 after a decade leading several radio brands in several formats, as well as a 5-year stint working in local television. In addition to his work with Barrett Media, he is a radio and TV play-by-play broadcaster. Reach out to him at Garrett@BarrettMedia.com.
I know I’m stating the obvious here, but not all media awards competitions require kissing the feet of voters. For example, other than simply submitting an entry, and usually paying a fee, no one in local broadcasting “campaigns” for regional Emmys or Murrows or Press Club awards. And local broadcasters, even in the big markets, have reduced or eliminated station awards entry budgets. Besides, most of these trophies are focused on news programming, and journalists, rather than receiving “pats on the back,” usually get kicked in their butts. Awards are a balm to these folks and most of them pay for their own entries. But national entertainment awards — they’re a totally different story. These accolades are used to market a program, so the companies that produce the shows spend big bucks on campaigns. They wine and dine the voters and advertise their wins to the public. It’s an accepted and necessary part of the business. So I think it’s a little rich for Ms. Kelly to take the position that she’s above all of that campaigning nonsense. My guess is she probably knows she doesn’t stand a chance of winning this particular contest. She’d have to do an awful lot of kissing with a poor chance of a payoff.