Had the protesters simply kept a vigil, the media wouldn't have stayed at all. They saw a circus and enjoyed every second of the coverage. To be fair, so did your side of the debate. Your side used every opportunity to spin, just as Michael S. did. Both of you used the media to your best advantage, and now complain about it.
Got proof of that assertion?
What on earth did he have to gain from publicity? Until your side showed up and started the fuss, all was being handled quietly by both sides. Yes, the Terri site was up, but few people had even heard of her. All the publicity came from the pro-Terri side.
Not sure what you think 'my side' is, but it appears now you are admitting that both sides used the media. That's different from what you were claiming before.
What on earth did he have to gain from publicity?
Public sentiment. "Aw, the poor guy. He has been taking care of his wife all these years and now he just wants to honor her wishes." Seems he garnered a lot of that, so he had plenty to gain.
Until your side showed up and started the fuss, all was being handled quietly by both sides.
Again with my 'side'. LOL So I point out that the liberal media did their usual thing, and you are talking about my 'side'. So I take it your 'side' thinks the liberal media is wonderful and you believe every word they say.
That explains a lot.