I would like to comment again on this subject regarding your post#351. The line is quite distinct. If the government refuses to allow the broadcast of Arnett's garbage, then and only then is it censorship. If the citizens (i.e. "customers") of the NBC networks rise up and demand an end to it, then it's an economic reality that his job be terminated. It's no different than if a football player sucks or if a tv news show finishes last in the ratings. The player will be cut or the tv show ended.
Arnett made another poor judgement as did the execs with NBC by gambling on his ability to just report instead of becoming part of the propaganda arm of an enemy nation. It is tantamount to treason but I'll leave that one to the lawyers. But the reality is if FR were shut down by the government, then it's censorship. If FR is shut down by protesters and lack of interest, then that is just an economic reality.
I object to censorship. I also object to alleged "unbiased" media types making propaganda films for our enemies. Arnett crossed the line and instead of paying the economic price of a consumer backlash, NBC took the correct action. This is very black and white with zero middle IMHO.

V

I pretty much agree with your comments but my concern is the effect that Arnett's firing has on other reporters in future situations. If the average reported will be afraid to say what he perceives is true if it isn't the current "group think" then that has an effect on what you and I will hear in the future.

So, its the future self censorship that will be affected that concerns me. I agree in truth Arnett was not censored. Part of me really wants to dance in the streets thinking Rather and Jennings might think twice before opening their mouths but part of me knows that is dangerous also.