Listen to the article

0:00
0:00

In a heated exchange that has intensified the media debate surrounding the Nancy Guthrie disappearance case, conservative commentator Megyn Kelly sharply criticized MSNBC reporter Alex Tabet for his comments about social media influencers covering the investigation.

During Monday’s episode of “The Megyn Kelly Show,” Kelly unleashed a scathing rebuke of Tabet after playing a clip where the reporter expressed concern about misinformation being spread by influencers on the ground in Arizona.

“Oh my god. Of all the networks to be lecturing us on disinformation,” Kelly said. “So, we’re not going to be taking lessons from you, twit reporter on how to handle a news story.”

Kelly, who has been closely following the Guthrie case and regularly commenting on its developments, defended the role of independent content creators covering the disappearance of “Today” anchor Savannah Guthrie’s mother. She argued these influencers have been instrumental in maintaining public interest in the case.

“The nerve of this asshole to try to chide the influencers and the podcasters, who are out there trying to cover this case, into doing it more like [MSNBC] or not doing it at all,” Kelly continued. “It’s thanks to them that we have half the interest in this case. They’re the ones who are following around law enforcement.”

The former Fox News anchor further emphasized that she finds value in the reporting done by influencers on location, calling them “invaluable” to her own coverage of the disappearance.

This exchange highlights the growing tension between traditional media outlets and independent content creators who have flocked to Tucson since Nancy Guthrie was reported missing on February 1. The case has attracted significant attention due to Nancy being the mother of NBC’s “Today” show co-anchor Savannah Guthrie.

Earlier on Monday, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos issued a statement defending the Guthrie family against conspiracy theories suggesting their possible involvement in the disappearance.

“To be clear… the Guthrie family — to include all siblings and spouses — has been cleared as possible suspects in this case,” Nanos stated. “The family has been nothing but cooperative and gracious and are victims in this case. To suggest otherwise is not only wrong, it is cruel.”

The sheriff also appealed directly to media outlets, saying, “I’m begging you the media to honor your profession and report with some sense of compassion and professionalism.”

Despite these pleas, public fascination with the case continues to grow, particularly as no arrests have been made in the 16 days since Nancy Guthrie disappeared. She was last seen near her Tucson-area home on January 31 before being reported missing around noon the following day.

In their investigation, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department and the FBI have released surveillance images showing a masked, gloved suspect outside Nancy’s home early on the morning she went missing. Authorities believe they have located gloves that appear to match those seen in the doorbell footage and have submitted them for DNA testing.

The case has highlighted evolving dynamics in crime coverage, with social media creators and podcasters now playing a significant role alongside traditional news outlets. This has created both opportunities for increased public awareness and challenges in maintaining factual reporting standards.

As the search for Nancy Guthrie continues, the media spotlight on the case shows no signs of dimming, with both traditional journalists and independent content creators maintaining their presence in Tucson as the investigation enters its third week.

Fact Checker

Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.

8 Comments

  1. Jennifer Smith on

    Regardless of one’s stance on this specific case, it’s clear that the relationship between traditional media, independent content creators, and the public is an important and evolving topic. I look forward to seeing how this conversation progresses.

  2. Patricia U. Taylor on

    As someone who follows the mining and commodities industry, I don’t have a strong opinion on this specific media controversy. However, I’m always interested in discussions around journalistic integrity and the evolving role of new media platforms.

  3. Elizabeth Jackson on

    This debate highlights the complexities and tensions in the modern media landscape. While I don’t have a stake in this particular issue, I’m curious to see how it may influence discussions around the future of news reporting and public engagement.

  4. Jennifer Johnson on

    It’s interesting to see the clash between traditional media outlets and newer digital platforms when it comes to covering news stories. There are valid points on both sides that deserve fair consideration.

  5. This is a heated debate between media personalities. While I understand the importance of accurate reporting, I’m curious to hear more perspectives on the role of independent content creators in high-profile cases like this.

  6. I appreciate the passion from both sides, but I hope they can find a way to have a constructive dialogue about the challenges and opportunities in modern journalism. Maintaining public interest is important, but accuracy should always be the top priority.

  7. This seems to be a complex issue without easy answers. I’m curious to hear more from the various stakeholders involved – the media outlets, the influencers, and the public – to better understand the nuances at play.

  8. Elijah Williams on

    As someone interested in the mining and commodities space, I don’t have a strong opinion on this particular media feud. However, I’m curious to see how the coverage of this case evolves and what impact it may have on public perceptions.

Leave A Reply

A professional organisation dedicated to combating disinformation through cutting-edge research, advanced monitoring tools, and coordinated response strategies.

Company

Disinformation Commission LLC
30 N Gould ST STE R
Sheridan, WY 82801
USA

© 2026 Disinformation Commission LLC. All rights reserved.