In recent discussions, Megyn Kelly and Ben Shapiro have delivered sharp critiques of George Clooney, focusing on what they perceive as his insufferable leftist stance and hypocrisy.

Clooney, a celebrated actor and activist, has long been vocal about politics and journalism, often positioning himself as a defender of truth and democracy.

However, Kelly and Shapiro argue that his rhetoric falls far short of reality and that his own actions and those of his inner circle undermine the very principles he claims to champion.

George Clooney’s recent Broadway appearance in *Good Night and Good Luck* included a moment where he broke the fourth wall to lecture the audience about the state of journalism and democracy under the Trump administration.

Clooney compared the political climate to McCarthyism and emphasized the vital role of a free press in holding power accountable.

This theatrical moment was widely criticized by Kelly and Shapiro as preachy and out of touch.

Kelly called Clooney “insufferable” and “unbelievably tiresome,” highlighting how his public persona as a truth-teller conflicts with his privileged position within the power structures he claims to oppose.

She pointed out that Clooney’s wife, Amal Clooney, has been involved in controversial international legal efforts, including attempts to prosecute Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which Kelly framed as part of political power plays rather than impartial justice.

A central theme in Kelly and Shapiro’s critique is the claim that Clooney’s image as someone who “speaks truth to power” is fundamentally misleading.

They argue that Clooney himself is part of the elite power structure and uses his influence selectively, often aligning with the Democratic Party’s interests.

For example, Clooney wrote a widely publicized op-ed calling for Joe Biden to drop out of the 2020 presidential race, which many believe influenced the party’s decisions.

Shapiro and Kelly contend that Clooney’s calls for journalistic integrity ring hollow given the media’s failures during recent years.

They reference the low public trust in journalism—hovering around 20% approval—and criticize Clooney for not addressing the real issues of media bias and misinformation.

Instead, they see him as perpetuating a narrative that protects the left while undermining honest discourse.

The criticism extends beyond Clooney himself to the broader Hollywood elite, who are often accused of preaching social responsibility while living lavish, environmentally damaging lifestyles.

Kelly and Shapiro highlight the disconnect between Clooney’s calls for rigorous journalism and the media’s handling of key issues like the origins of COVID-19.

They note how major outlets, including *The New York Times*, only recently acknowledged the possibility of a lab leak after years of dismissing it and labeling dissenters as racists.

This selective approach to truth-telling is seen as emblematic of Hollywood’s political hypocrisy.

Clooney’s theatrical denunciations of the Trump administration contrast sharply with his silence or complicity during other critical moments.

Kelly emphasizes that the media’s repeated settlements in defamation lawsuits with Trump highlight their failures rather than their commitment to truth.

One of the most pointed critiques revolves around Clooney’s role in the 2020 Democratic primary.

He attended a fundraiser where Biden appeared visibly unwell, raising concerns about the then-candidate’s fitness for office.

Despite witnessing these signs, Clooney waited weeks before publishing his op-ed urging Biden to step down.

Kelly and Shapiro accuse him of dishonesty, suggesting that Clooney’s delayed response was politically motivated rather than a genuine act of concern.

They also reference footage from the event showing Obama physically guiding Biden off stage, which sparked debates about Biden’s cognitive health.

Despite this, Clooney and other Democrats dismissed such concerns as conspiracy theories, further fueling accusations of gaslighting by the political establishment.

Kelly and Shapiro’s critique ultimately questions the effectiveness and sincerity of celebrity activism in politics.

They argue that actors like Clooney lack the expertise and accountability to meaningfully contribute to political discourse.

Clooney’s background as an actor and his recent theatrical efforts do not qualify him as a journalist or political authority.

The discussion also touches on other celebrities who have attempted to influence public opinion, such as Jimmy Kimmel and Tom Hanks, often with mixed results.

Kelly expresses frustration with celebrities who use their platforms to promote political agendas without the rigor or responsibility expected of genuine advocates.

The broader context of the critique is the declining trust in media and institutions.

Kelly and Shapiro highlight how the journalistic establishment has failed to maintain credibility, citing examples of biased coverage and suppression of inconvenient truths.

They challenge Clooney’s idealized vision of journalism as a noble “fourth estate” and call for a more honest reckoning with the media’s shortcomings.

They also point out the dangers of treating journalism as a “warring” entity that must aggressively attack political opponents, arguing that such an approach undermines democratic dialogue and fuels polarization.

Megyn Kelly and Ben Shapiro’s critique of George Clooney serves as a broader commentary on the intersection of celebrity, politics, and media today.

They call out what they see as hypocrisy and performative activism among Hollywood elites, urging a more honest and accountable approach to political engagement.

While Clooney positions himself as a defender of democracy and truth, Kelly and Shapiro argue that his actions and those of his peers often serve partisan interests and contribute to the erosion of public trust.

Their perspective challenges audiences to critically evaluate the role of celebrities in political discourse and the state of journalism in a deeply divided society.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.