Snopes tends to have a liberal cast. They don't debate what the man said, just that, "the media did not suppress what he said".
My experience tells me the media NEVER thinks it is suppressing what conservatives say - just that it isn't of any interest to their readers.
I'm sure they also believe the media does not dislike the military, or Bush.
"Liberal cast" is an understatement. In the aftermath of the Columbine incident there was, as usual, an immediate flurry of media coverage which overwhelmingly attempted to frame the issue almost exclusively as a "gun problem" and blame the NRA. The MSM gave extensive coverage to any parents, government officials and so-called "experts" who made public statements which fit that template. The very fact of the anomalous nature which Mr. Scott's statement represented was itself "newsworthy" by any rational, honest and accurate definition of the word.
Snopes statement that "The media" didn't prevent anyone from hearing Mr. Scott's speech; most news outlets simply didn't give it much coverage because it wasn't particularly newsworthy. As noted above, Mr. Scott really didn't offer much of substance, and what he did have to say had already been said earlier and louder by many others... is extremely disingenuous.
There are lies of commission, and lies of omission. The MSM did not fail to give Mr. Scott's statement wide coverage because it wasn't newsworthy, they REFUSED to give it wide coverage because it didn't fit their template and agenda.
Non coverage is an act of omission (or not acting), suppression is an act of comission, requiring active attempts to squelch the story.
Technically, they are correct in that they did not necessarily suppress the story, they just never gave it airtime.
No wonder they are so enamored of the guy who got so much mileage out of the meaning of 'is'.