rec.arts.theatre.musicals

"Iarnrod" wrote in message =
news: @ ...
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20

They didn't care at first, but eventually they cared. The national =
spotlight was on CU and the guy holding that spotlight was none other =
than Bill O'Reilly. =20

> That's my point, it was all local.=20

But it wasn't all local. It was national coverage and specifically =
Bill O'Reilly that got the governor of the state to demand Churchill's =
resignation. I have documented the fact that Churchill's misconduct =
allegations went back almost a decade. No one was paying any attention =
to it until O'Reilly gave the story national attention. That was when =
the shit hit the fan. =20


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.
>=20
> No one here even *thought* of Bill O'Reilly much less watched him.
>