I dunno, I might have done the same thing.
See, conservative-leaning news networks have to play by different rules than leftist-leaning ones.
Besides, as a purely-business oriented decision it made some sense. Fox knew they had a VERY strong replacement ready to go in Tucker Carlson (younger, just as articulate, personable). That view says by plugging Carlson into the slot immediately, they don't lose much (any) viewers and the network side-steps the whole controversy inherent in O'Reilly's problems. And make no mistake, they were (are) HIS problems almost exclusively. If they are resolved favorably, they can bring him back as a part-time commentator the way Britt Hume is used and there are no hard feelings. Twenty million dollars is a nice way to say "see you later, no hard feelings".
So O'Reilly had either by negligence or bad luck arrived in that bad place where he is worth more to the company as a (metaphorical) corpse than alive. The up side/down side net value of "permanently suspending him" was greater than the up side / down side of keeping him.
I personally sort of like O'Reilly, so from a personal POV, I would have preferred that they kept him and fought it out. But I know too much about how mass media functions to believe that there is not a strong argument for "taking advantage" of situations as they arise in regard to divesting one's company of huge question marks for sure things when possible.
That being said, there is probably no way to know whether the lady actually influenced the decisions as much as the article maintains. Bidness is bidness and at that level, sometimes a smart spouse will have input on a situation that is helpful because they have an intuitive grasp of the psyche of the decision maker and may be able to get the zeitgeist of their decision- process enough to nudge them one way or the other if they are already leaning in some direction.
To quote "Men in Black", from senior management's POV, O'Reilly was, "Old and busted," while Carlson was the, "new hotness". Old and busted v new hotness. Not rocket science in one sense.
Also the ratings post-removal seem to justify the decision as it has been as seamless as reasonable to expect. Carlson is good. IMO at least as good as O'Reilly but with his own slant on interview style that is refreshing.
