question:Article: Bill O’Reilly has long been an imposing presence in cable news and the so-called culture wars. The 6-foot, 4-inch former high school history teacher from Long Island demonstrated that a strong opinion could translate into a powerful platform and big profits long before social media — or even President Trump — was a thing. O’Reilly helped boost Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Channel into a 1-billion-plus-a-year business. But in the wake of his dismissal Wednesday over allegations of sexual harassment, it remains to be seen whether the scandal would mortally wound his reputation or dent his business prospects. “He had a massive megaphone to talk to the people — and that has been taken away,” said Fred Cook, director of the USC Center of Public Relations at the Annenberg School. “I think he's a little like Donald Trump in that he has a loyal following. Those hardcore supporters will continue to support him and may even be more supportive of him after this.” O’Reilly, who has been on vacation for the last week, including a visit with Pope Francis at the Vatican, has asserted that the allegations that he sexually harassed women who appeared on his show are “unfounded.” Parent company 21st Century Fox said in a statement: “After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel.” It is a harsh fall from grace for one of television’s most bankable stars. “The O’Reilly Factor” long has been one of the most popular programs on cable TV, this year averaging 4 million viewers an episode, according to ratings company Nielsen. O’Reilly masterfully turned his Fox News bully pulpit into a springboard for his publishing pursuits. He is one of the country's most popular nonfiction authors with his “Killing Lincoln,” “Killing Kennedy” and “Killing Jesus” books, several of which have been made into TV movies on the National Geographic Channel (also owned by Fox). O’Reilly’s “Killing” series books have consistently sold 1 million or more copies in hardcover, a rare achievement in publishing. He had other best-sellers, including “Bill O’Reilly: Culture Warrior,” the memoir “A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity” and his most recent work, “Old School,” which includes passages urging the respectful treatment of women. “His show was a massive platform for him and supported everything he's doing,” Cook said. “It will be harder for him to reach the same number of people.” In recent years, the 67-year-old TV host and author mentioned during various talk show appearances that he would eventually slow down. But he remained busy outside his Fox News studio. He has headlined live shows around the country with comedian Dennis Miller called “The Spin Stops Here Tour,” which is still scheduled to make stops in Baltimore, Las Vegas and Anaheim later this year. “This [scandal] has definitely hurt his brand in the broad sense, but he will undoubtedly bounce back,” said Marlene Morris Towns, an adjunct marketing professor at Georgetown University in Washington. “He will find a home because his super-loyal fan base will still support him.” He will find a home because his super-loyal fan base will still support him. — Marlene Morris Towns, Georgetown University marketing professor Industry insiders suggested that O’Reilly might concentrate his efforts on his books and turning them into TV movies. O'Reilly and coauthor Martin Dugard are due to release another book in the “Killing” series in September, and a spokeswoman for publisher Henry Holt and Co. said that plans had not changed. Some suggested he could earn big fees by hitting the speaking circuit. And others said he might even re-create some of his cable news success with a show on radio or an upstart Internet streaming service. O’Reilly also could resurface as a commentator on traditional television, such as for the conservative Sinclair Broadcasting Group, a Maryland TV station chain that has shown an appetite for owning TV content and this month hired Trump’s former spokesman, Boris Epshteyn, to be its chief political analyst. (A Sinclair executive could not be reached for comment). "He has a broad loyal viewership that has an almost universally favorable view of him,” said Kyle Dropp, co-founder and chief research officer of Morning Consult, a Washington polling and market research firm. “When other hosts switch platforms, they usually have a large base that moves with them." Former Fox News personality Glenn Beck, for example, started a digital network called The Blaze, which initially attracted a sizable audience. However, some TV executives noted that O’Reilly’s audience — largely older white men — might not follow O’Reilly if he opted to make a comeback through an Internet venture. According to Nielsen data, the median age of his television audience is 67 — the same age as O’Reilly. “His audience will be less likely to find him on an alternative platform,” predicted Towns of Georgetown. O’Reilly worked hard to build himself into a bigger brand than many TV news celebrities. In addition to his books and live tour, his website offers a collection of “No Spin” merchandise, including hats, ties, mugs, t-shirts, lapel pins, key chains shaped like the United States and “Patriots Welcome” doormats. Over the years, O’Reilly also inspired copycats, serving as the model for the pompous TV pundit that Stephen Colbert played, tongue-in-cheek, for years on Comedy Central before Colbert decamped for CBS. O’Reilly relished his role as a foil, and he might even benefit from a perception that he was unfairly targeted by liberal activists. Trump said earlier this month that he didn’t think his friend, O’Reilly, did anything wrong. And on Wednesday, Beck suggested that his former colleague was the victim of a smear campaign by liberal activists. The group Media Matters for America, which is a vociferous critic of Fox News, said Wednesday that its efforts to organize an advertiser boycott of O’Reilly’s show were legitimate. “It's not a smear campaign,” Angelo Carusone, president of Media Matters for America, said in an interview. “This has been a deeper problem at Fox News — it's the larger culture at Fox News and that Fox was handling this in a blithe way." ||||| Bill O'Reilly will be paid tens of millions of dollars on his way out of Fox News, two well-placed sources told CNNMoney. "It is a staggering amount," said a source personally involved in the exit maneuverings. After this story was originally published Thursday morning, a third source said the payout totals 25 million. 21st Century Fox and O'Reilly's representatives will not acknowledge the existence of a payout. A confidentiality agreement limits what the two sides can say. But the sources confirmed that O'Reilly does have a parachute, partly because O'Reilly signed a new contract right before being ousted. The two original sources, who spoke independently of one another, said the new contract was worth about 25 million per year. (Previous news reports have pegged O'Reilly's past contract at 18 to 20 million a year.) O'Reilly commanded a higher sum for obvious reasons: he dominated the ratings and helped Fox News deliver record profits for its parent company. The two sources also said the contract extended through the next presidential election, meaning it was set to expire either at the end of 2020 or sometime in 2021. However, O'Reilly will not be paid the entire amount he was owed. That's because Fox incorporated language in the new contract that gave the network some "outs." Fox is only on the hook for one years' salary, according to one of the sources. That's why the payout totals 25 million. Roger Ailes, on the other hand, was paid the entire remainder of his contract when he resigned under pressure last summer. Ailes, the founding CEO of Fox News, was accused of harassment by Fox employees. Ailes was paid more than 40 million on the way out. He recently bought a 36 million oceanfront home in Florida. As for O'Reilly, the sources declined to say exactly how much money he will receive. But regulatory filings may drop some hints in the coming months. The Washington Post reported that the new deal was signed in March -- just weeks before The New York Times' investigation into O'Reilly was published on April 1. Related: What will Bill O'Reilly do now? The Murdochs knew that the Times story was in the works, and that's why "outs" were added to the contract. But the Murdochs underestimated just how severe the fallout would be, one of the sources said. Dozens of advertisers abandoned the "O'Reilly Factor" and other women came forward with new accusations of harassment. When Ailes was sued, Fox asked the law firm Paul, Weiss to conduct an internal investigation. Precisely two weeks later, Ailes resigned. This month, the timeline repeated itself. When O'Reilly accuser Wendy Walsh and her attorney Lisa Bloom called Fox's hotline on April 5, the Murdochs put Paul, Weiss on the case. The results of the internal probe were not shared publicly on Wednesday, but it apparently influenced the Murdochs' decision. Exactly two weeks later, O'Reilly was dismissed. At an event in New York on Wednesday night, James Murdoch, the company's CEO, was asked by a New York Times reporter about the abrupt exit. Murdoch said "we did a thorough investigation, a thorough review, and we reached a conclusion. Everything that we said in our statement is all you need to know." O'Reilly issued a statement that reaffirmed his innocence, saying "it is tremendously disheartening that we part ways due to completely unfounded claims. But that is the unfortunate reality many of us in the public eye must live with today." ||||| Bill O’Reilly could walk away with as much as 20 million to 25 million as part of his separation from Fox News Channel, according to a person familiar with the situation, signaling the high value the cable-news outlet placed on its best-known anchor. As part of the terms of a contract recently signed between the veteran anchor and the 21st Century Fox cable-news outlet, O’Reilly is entitled to as much as a year of his current salary, this person said. O’Reilly is believed to make as much as 20 million to 25 million per year. O’Reilly is leaving the network after a New York Times investigation revealed 13 million in settlements made to women who levied charges of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior at the former host of the popular “The O’Reilly Factor.” Advertisers subsequently defected from his program. In a statement released Wednesday, O’Reilly said: “It is tremendously disheartening that we part ways due to completely unfounded claims. But that is the unfortunate reality many of us in the public eye must live with today. I will always look back on my time at Fox with great pride in the unprecedented success we achieved and with my deepest gratitude to all my dedicated viewers. I wish only the best for Fox News Channel.” He has said he entered into settlements to protect his children and suggested his fame made him a target. A Fox News spokesperson declined to comment, as did a spokesman for O’Reilly. O’Reilly would not be the first to walk away from Fox under a cloud but with substantial money under his arm. Roger Ailes, the network’s former chairman and chief executive, was ousted last summer in the wake of an investigation made into allegations of sexual harassment, and was said to be paid a settlement valued at the remaining time on his contract. Ailes was said to make around 20 million per year. ||||| With the ouster of Roger Ailes and now Bill O’Reilly, Rupert Murdoch's son has overthrown his own network as he moves to reinvent the family company's profit machine at great risk. After The New York Times wrote about the sexual harassment claims leveled at Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly and the settlements made by the company and O’Reilly himself, James Murdoch, according to 21st Century Fox sources, kept repeating with horror to his friends and executives: "This is on the front page of The New York Times!" These sources say James Murdoch’s longtime annoyance if not disgust with Fox News became cold fury after the Times' April 1 story — even though several of the O’Reilly settlements had happened when James was CEO of the parent company. This was a similar reaction to what had followed the harassment suit by former anchor Gretchen Carlson against Fox News chief Roger Ailes in July. Every time Fox controversies spilled over into the wider world, James took it personally. “It was somehow against him," says one person close to the Murdochs. Fox News is a business he should not be in, he had told people before, despite its major contribution to 21st Century Fox's bottom line — 20 percent of its profits came from Fox News last year, the biggest-earning division in the company. Presumably, he meant the in-your-face world of conservative cable news with its mega personalities. Indeed, James regarded many of the people at Fox News as thuggish Neanderthals and said he was embarrassed to be in the same company with them. But, likewise, it would be hard to imagine how James could have been regarded with more contempt by many of the people at Fox News. James was rather exhibit No. 1 of the liberal elite entitlement that Fox had so profitably programmed against. “Fox [News] is an important brand, but it needs to develop, and, to some extent, be reformed,” James said when I interviewed him 10 years ago in his office as the chief executive of the Murdoch-controlled Sky TV in Britain, whose significantly less-partisan news operation he extolled as a ratings and journalistic model. He seized his first opportunity for reform in July when, over his father Rupert's protests and his brother and co-executive Lachlan’s ambivalence, he pushed for the ouster of Ailes, the network’s founder and almost all-powerful executive. When the O’Reilly story hit the Times, he overrode his father and brother again — and, by the same method he had used with Ailes, hiring a Democratic-associated law firm, Paul Weiss, to perform a rubber-stamp investigation. (In neither the Ailes nor O’Reilly investigations were the targets of the investigation interviewed.) It was, he proudly told friends, a right decision rather than a business decision. The billionaire scion was aligning himself, profits be damned, with a new generation of corporate responsibility. That put him quite directly at odds with his father. It would be quite inconceivable to imagine Rupert sacrificing sure profits for greater good or a better image; indeed, his company had always been a pirate company. But that really is the larger point — in which O’Reilly and Ailes were in the end just collateral damage — it isn't his father’s company anymore. If the expulsion of Ailes, and, even more dramatically, O’Reilly, mean anything, it means most of all that James is in charge. And, most immediately, this means that Fox News, that constant irritant in James’ view of himself as a progressive and visionary television executive, will begin to change. Virtually overnight. In some sense, with the ouster of Ailes and now O’Reilly, James has overthrown his own network. With them there, both men possessing vast industry, institutional, political and corporate powers, it would have been impossible for the owner’s jejune son to have forced change. Now with them gone, it’s nearly a clean slate. Fox News must become something else. The almost certain instant erosion of Fox’s primetime audience, built on the spillover of O’Reilly’s long-unbeaten 8:00 hour, means the existential moment begins, practically speaking, immediately. Rupert, 86, is said to be watching this in some disbelief, but with some pride, too. He has long believed that what many others see as his son’s arrogance and superciliousness is actually brilliance. And while Rupert may disagree with much of James' instincts and actions — quite proved inadequate in the London phone-hacking scandal for which James received much of the blame — he yet seems pleased that he would be up to taking them. James’ dream, wherein he hopes to match his father’s accomplishments, and which he has been spinning for all who might listen for many years now, is of combining Sky News and Fox News with the vast Murdoch reach and producing some ultimate global news brand. Where Fox News is parochial and America First, the new global brand is worldly and unlimited. It will give his family’s company, once the pirate company, new meaning and new stature — a force for stability instead of upheaval. Murdoch media, in an age of populist disruption, will stand for the established world order. Risk, in Murdochland, is good. Risk is one of Rupert's top business virtues. But where his father took risks in defiance of the respectable world, James, with some kind of head-smacking irony, is now risking the profits and influence his father created (with no small help from Ailes and O’Reilly) in pursuit of some ultimate respectability. ||||| There are few forces on television more powerful than Tucker Carlson’s skepticism. Subjected to it, a pundit or politician will wilt, or stammer, or stand firm, or (very occasionally) respond with a convincing argument. Whichever way things go, the results are often compulsively watchable—at least for those with an appetite for televised discomfort. This skepticism has driven the success of Carlson’s show, “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” on Fox News, which will now become the cornerstone of the network’s prime-time lineup. On Wednesday, Fox News announced that Bill O’Reilly, who is under the cloud of a sexual-harassment scandal, was leaving the company. His replacement in the network’s 8 P.M. time slot is Carlson, a former antagonist of O’Reilly (he once called him a “thin-skinned blowhard”) who is now called upon to do what O’Reilly did for two decades: provide ratings big enough to insure that, night after night, Fox News remains the most-viewed cable-news network in the country. For many years, for most viewers, the identity of Fox News has been closely linked to the identity of O’Reilly, who was flinty and utterly self-assured—and who took pains to present himself, not always convincingly, as conservative but nonpartisan. In his new book, “Old School: Life in the Sane Lane,” O’Reilly goes out of his way to praise Michelle Obama, writing, “I watched Michelle Obama on a few occasions treat strangers so well that I was floored. Believe Mrs. Obama is Old School.” Carlson once wrote that O’Reilly’s regular-guy persona made him uniquely vulnerable to scandal, because fans wanted to believe in him. But O’Reilly wasn’t much hurt by a widely reported 2004 lawsuit in which a colleague accused him of sexual harassment. It seems possible that the more recent revelations damaged O’Reilly less than they damaged Fox News: its founding C.E.O., Roger Ailes, resigned last year amid multiple allegations of sexual harassment. The allegations against O’Reilly made it appear as if the network still wasn’t committed to protecting the women who worked there. Judging from the ratings, O’Reilly’s viewers stayed loyal to him—even as advertisers fled—and O’Reilly will surely find an audience for whatever he does next. His regular-guy persona will outlive the extraordinary television career it enabled. The devotion of O’Reilly’s regular viewers surely made this decision more difficult for Rupert Murdoch, the executive chairman of Fox News. On a typical night, O’Reilly would draw the biggest audience in all of cable news; Carlson, at nine o’clock, would draw a smaller audience than O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity, at ten, would draw a smaller audience than Carlson. Reading the Nielsen numbers, it was possible to imagine that the nightly success of Fox News depended on how long O’Reilly’s viewers could stay awake. And the hosts who followed O’Reilly certainly worked in his shadow: Carlson was more intellectual and more mischievous; Hannity was more politically engaged and more partisan. Carlson is inheriting O’Reilly’s time slot but not his stature—and a network is not necessarily defined by its 8 P.M. show. At MSNBC, Rachel Maddow draws a bigger audience, at nine, than Chris Hayes does, at eight. On Wednesday, Fox News also announced that the nine-o’clock hour will now belong to “The Five,” a panel-discussion show that includes another mischief maker: Greg Gutfeld, the sardonic former host of “Red Eye,” a highly entertaining late-night show that Fox News recently cancelled. When many people think of Fox News, they picture a confident man in a business jacket telling viewers what to think. Now the only prime-time show matching that description will be Hannity’s. The departure of O’Reilly—like the departure, last summer, of Ailes—suggests that the network’s old way of operating has become unsustainable. But much of the network’s old guard remains: the network’s co-president, Bill Shine, is known as Ailes’s former “right-hand man.” And nothing about the Fox News' public response to the latest scandal has conveyed the impression that it is eager to remake its corporate culture. It seems possible, though, that Carlson’s promotion to eight o’clock will, in a small but noticeable way, change the way people think about what Fox News does. The network developed a reputation, in the aughts, for being ferociously loyal to President George W. Bush. (In fact, O’Reilly’s support for the war in Iraq was more lukewarm than most people remember. On the eve of war, he said that he was inclined to support Bush, but added, “Nobody knows for sure what the absolute right thing to do is.”) Carlson, who is something of a contrarian, loves to criticize the most intemperate critics of President Trump—he can be particularly withering on the topic of immigration. But that doesn’t mean Carlson always supports the President. And, from time to time, he has shown himself willing to aim the force of his industrial-strength skepticism at the current Administration. On April 7th, in the wake of the news that Trump had ordered fifty-nine missiles fired into Syria, Carlson had on Lindsey Graham, the senator from South Carolina, a noted critic of Trump who was also a full-throated supporter of the missile strike. What followed was one of the most memorable segments that Carlson has broadcast so far, as the host—deeply skeptical of the budding war effort—pushed his guest to explain what the Administration was up to. “I can’t tell who the main enemy is here,” Carlson said. “You said that ISIL is the main enemy. And then you said Iran is the main enemy. But they’re fighting each other, so I’m confused.” (Carlson excels at feigning confusion.) Graham tried to explain that Syria was a client state of Iran, and that America’s seemingly incompatible military goals were, in fact, inseparable. “Radical Sunni Islam hates the Iranians, because they’re a bunch of Shiites,” Graham replied. “They hate us, too. How are we connected here? Radical Islam, in the Sunni side, did 9/11. I don’t think Iran is going to attack us tomorrow, but I think if they had a nuclear capability they would share it with terrorist organizations, and our homeland would be at risk.” Carlson did not seem convinced by this rather complicated explanation. “Like most Americans, I’m pretty skeptical about starting an entire new war, given the track record of the wars that you’ve supported so far has been, I think, most people would say, abysmal,” he said. This was a bracing exchange, and perhaps a revealing one. Carlson used to relish playing the role of resident skeptic at Fox News. Now, perhaps, he will become the leading voice of a network that is a little bit more skeptical than it used to be. ||||| Lurid Claims Burst Into View Fox News has been aware of complaints about inappropriate behavior by Mr. O’Reilly since at least 2002, when Mr. O’Reilly stormed into the newsroom and screamed at a young producer, according to current and former employees, some of whom witnessed the incident. Shortly thereafter, the woman, Rachel Witlieb Bernstein, left the network with a payout and bound by a confidentiality agreement, people familiar with the deal said. The exact amount she was paid is not known, but it was far less than the other settlements. The case did not involve sexual harassment. Two years later, allegations about Mr. O’Reilly entered the public arena in lurid fashion when a producer on his show, Andrea Mackris, then 33, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against him. In the suit, she said he had told her to buy a vibrator, called her at times when it sounded as if he was masturbating and described sexual fantasies involving her. Ms. Mackris had recorded some of the conversations, people familiar with the case said. Ms. Mackris also said in the suit that Mr. O’Reilly, who was married at the time (he and his wife divorced in 2011), threatened her, saying he would make any woman who complained about his behavior “pay so dearly that she’ll wish she’d never been born.” Fox News and Mr. O’Reilly adopted an aggressive strategy that served as a stark warning of what could happen to women if they came forward with complaints, current and former employees told The Times. Before Ms. Mackris even filed suit, Fox News and Mr. O’Reilly surprised her with a pre-emptive suit of their own, asserting she was seeking to extort 60 million in return for not going public with “scandalous and scurrilous” claims about him. “This is the single most evil thing I have ever experienced, and I have seen a lot,” he said on his show the day both suits were filed. “But these people picked the wrong guy.” ||||| Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images Bill O’Reilly has returned from his Italian holiday without a day job. On Wednesday, Fox News axed the most popular host on cable news following an advertiser walkout over O’Reilly’s alleged history of sexual harassment, which he and the network had kept hidden by paying millions in lawsuit settlements. For now, though, O’Reilly still has his lucrative book-writing, his live appearances, and, of course, his millions. And he may yet continue to darken America’s screens. Advertisement O’Reilly possesses a fan base that clings to him with Bieberian levels of devotion. His audience is more than happy to whitewash his bad behavior, blaming the victims and the liberal media, showering him with love and denial. They won’t all follow O’Reilly to his next act, but plenty will. So what’s O’Reilly’s next step? How does he monetize (such a 21st century word for such a 20th century character) his rabid fans, the people who made sure his ratings went up even as advertisers began jumping ship? The answer is OTT. Get Slate in your inbox. That’s over-the-top, a term used to describe not O’Reilly’s bombastic style, but rather the technology for delivering television over the open internet. (In olden days, the cables to connect the devices that allowed for internet-based transmission literally snaked over the top of the TV set, hence the name.) O’Reilly is one of the few media stars with enough name recognition and the sort of devoted fan base to make a standalone TV network a realistic possibility. Glenn Beck did it, and O’Reilly is arguably far more popular than Beck. Advertisement Launching an OTT network—as Donald Trump might have done had he lost the election—is not rocket science. There are plenty of high-quality software and hardware solutions that would allow him to launch a network quickly and easily, and to actually produce his show, at least in DIY style, all O’Reilly really needs is a couple of cameramen, stage lights, and microphones that can handle really, really loud voices. He’d also need to decide on a business model—a monthly subscription plan; a transactional model, where each show is available individually; or, more likely, a hybrid, where subscribers save money over the cost of individual downloads, while also providing O’Reilly with a recurring revenue stream. Throw in some red, white, and blue graphics and an easy-to-remember URL and you’re pretty much set. A deal with the larger streaming devices like Roku, Apple TV, and Amazon Firestick would help—assuming they don’t deem an O’Reilly channel too toxic to host—but otherwise a basic Chromecast, to stream the show from the web browser to their TVs, would work for his fans. (And really clear, really well-thought-out instructions: O’Reilly’s audience, after all, skews older.) Perhaps like Glenn Beck, O’Reilly would decide to expand his show into a full-on network, adding other like-minded commentators, and otherwise make a go of it as a digital property. How much could O’Reilly make? If just over one-quarter of the 3.76 million people who watched his show on Tuesday, April 4 signed up for a 10 monthly subscription, he’d be grossing 10 million each month—or 120 million a year. In order to launch a successful OTT network, you need to have the sort of devoted audience who will follow you into uncharted waters, fans who will gladly download your app and pay for the privilege. As such, O’Reilly is one of a small number of celebrities who could pull something like this off. There’s Oprah. Howard Stern. Maybe Rachel Maddow or Jerry Seinfeld. The most enticing thing for O’Reilly might be this: He wouldn’t need to rely on the advertisers who were scared off by his alleged extracurricular activities. He just needs the support of his loyal fans. When you’ve got a built-in audience of millions, the options are fairly endless. (Then again, given the fleeting nature of fame in America and the advanced age of O’Reilly’s fan base, he probably would want to make his move fast.) ||||| The emergence of those strains explained why Fox News occasionally appeared to be at war with itself over the past year. Those who were in the more traditional conservative and neoconservative camps lined up against Mr. Trump — or, at least, were not enthusiastically behind him — and those who were more aligned with Mr. Trump’s brand of nationalism lined up behind him. Will Fox News embrace the more traditional conservatism represented by Dana Perino, the former Bush press secretary and co-host of “The Five,” who has won high marks as a substitute for Mr. O’Reilly over the past few days? Or will it do more to highlight the more populist, antiglobalist brand of her “Five” co-host Eric Bolling, who will take over the 5 p.m. time slot and won’t join Ms. Perino and his other co-hosts in prime time? The family that will ultimately decide, the Murdochs, has its own funhouse-mirror version of those competing strands. There is the founding executive chairman and family patriarch, Rupert Murdoch, who after being suspicious of Mr. Trump, has swung solidly — but not blindly — behind him. Then there are his successors-in-waiting, James Murdoch, said to be the most liberal-leaning of the three, and Lachlan Murdoch, said to be somewhere in between them, according to those who know them. People briefed on the internal discussions said it was James Murdoch — whose wife, Kathryn, once worked at the Clinton Climate Initiative — who first saw Mr. O’Reilly’s removal as essential, followed by Lachlan and finally Rupert, who despite his own promotion of women in his companies showed the most willingness to stand behind Mr. Ailes and then Mr. O’Reilly as the allegations piled up. But Fox’s ultimate look in the post-Ailes, post-O’Reilly era — and therefore, its place in the conservative media movement — will come down to the two things all three of them always agree on: ratings and revenue. ||||| Tucker Carlson has become the quick fix for Fox News. Already a surprising success in the 9 p.m. hour where he succeeded the popular Megyn Kelly in January, Fox News is now asking Mr. Carlson to fill the very big shoes of Bill O’Reilly at 8 p.m., a much more daunting task. Mr. O’Reilly’s show averaged around four million viewers a night in... |||||Summary:

question:Answer the following question: What is the final step of the following process: - He air we breathe contains oxygen and other gases - Once in the lungs, oxygen is moved into the bloodstream and carried through your body - At each cell in your body, oxygen is exchanged for a waste gas called carbon dioxide - Your bloodstream then carries this waste gas back to the lungs where it is removed from the blood stream and then exhaled Answer:

question:Read this: Parallel to events in Germany, a movement began in Switzerland under the leadership of Huldrych Zwingli. Zwingli was a scholar and preacher, who in 1518 moved to Zurich. Although the two movements agreed on many issues of theology, some unresolved differences kept them separate. A long-standing resentment between the German states and the Swiss Confederation led to heated debate over how much Zwingli owed his ideas to Lutheranism. The German Prince Philip of Hesse saw potential in creating an alliance between Zwingli and Luther. A meeting was held in his castle in 1529, now known as the Colloquy of Marburg, which has become infamous for its failure. The two men could not come to any agreement due to their disputation over one key doctrine. Now answer this question, if there is an answer (If it cannot be answered, return "unanswerable"): What did the Colloquy of Marburg become infamous for?

question:Translate "Psicoterapia en Pando, Bolivia - Amarillasbolivia.net" from Spanish to English.