From the article:
....
The candidate is getting the sort of coverage he's largely denied by what his supporters refer to as the "MSM." The question ultimately is: is all coverage good coverage?
...
It's bad coverage if it breaks the budget to get covered. Free coverage is always good. The only bad publicity is no publicity. The percentage of those who doubt the MSM is growing all the time. Was it bad coverage when there was a concentrated attempt to marginalize Ron Paul at the debates? No, it opened the floodgates for new supporters.