rec.arts.theatre.musicals

On Aug 12, 9:00 am, "mw" wrote:
> "Iarnrod" wrote in messagenews: @ ...
> > On Aug 10, 12:08 pm, "mw" wrote:
>
> >> The media that were coveringthe story would not have done so were it not for O'Reilly's program. And the media that covered extensively was almpost exclusively right wing.
>
> > Absolutely incorrect. The local Colorado MSM covered Churchill to the
> > point of nausea. O'Reilly only heard about it because it was being
> > covered here, and he relied on local Colorado people to be his guests.
> > O'Reilly's coverage was absolutely not a factor, not even a small one,
> > in Churchill's firing. He had nothing to do with it. He was a sideshow
> > to the media overkill.
>
> Hmm, I wonder how many people in Flordia, NH, ME, and NY caught the local Colorado MSM coverage of the Churchill story.

Why? Why would that matter? Ward Churchill was a CU problem, and no
one at CU cared one tiny bit about Florida, NH, ME or NY, and they
cared even less about what a shyster llike Bill O'Reilly was saying
from day to day.

That's my point, it was all local. Because of the massive amount of
*local* MSM coverage, the *local* elected regents had to respond to
their *local* constituents once the *local* MSM overkill coverage --
which bettered O'Reilly's story count by orders og magnitude -
prompted Churchill's longtime critics in the truly indigenous
community to push their long-ignored complaints about his questionable
scholarship.

No one here even *thought* of Bill O'Reilly much less watched him.