The Ann Coulter / Berkley thing may be about censorship, the fact they may or may not cancel her speaking at a university forum due to threats of violence. See here

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-coulter-idUSKBN17M1W1

(Note the issue is still in the state of flux, so do not be surprised that there are 2 or 3 changes in the next few days.)

That is a clear debate whether it is censorship or not. This O'Reilly thing is another type of cattle and it is not about censorship but you can argue what beast of burden it belongs to.

Starts rambling about the post in general that damookster made and is not talking specifically to The Shrike (aka Greg but lets keep this formal out of respect to TheShrike)

I personally argue that it is about disgust and how Fox Owners are afraid that personal disgust will translate to disgust with other properties. O'Reilly's rating are actually higher during the controversy but the amount of dollars they could obtain from those ratings were lower, for less buyers were wanting those ads during this rating time and thus you have a monopsony situation with ad buys. Aka a market failure just like a monopoly can be a market failure in a different way.

A monopsony is where there is 1 buyer and many sellers, 1 advertising company can buy tv anywhere and why would I want to sell ad time during contreversal man, I move my ad dollars to different fox shows, or different cable tv providers during the same time slot.

This leads to the situation where the ratings are undervalued if you look at the relative amount of viewers. You get a situation where few buyers want to be on the factor during this time slot due to the host. Only people who want to buy ad time are people like gold companies and such. Those companies know their competition for the ad dollars and are able to underbid what Fox really wants for Ad money due to the situation. Aka the ad buyers have leverage due to the monosopony nature and not Fox having leverage due to them having the highest rated cable tv news show.

Personally I can't see how you can make the arguement for Censorship when in reality you need to put yourself in the perspective of the people who buy and sell the various transactions like I will give money for ad time you give me ad time I then sell to my real audience not fox but the people who buy my product yet I must also keep my brand image untarnished for people are fickle about brands and image ....yadda yadda yadda and do the perspective shifting in all the different people who are going to do some form of exchange. Like Comcast and them arguing about Fox for what will be the cost to have the Fox News Chanel, like the brands who buy ad time, like the watchers who watch the show, like the anchor in negotiations for their contract and how many millions they cost Fox, and so on.

It is not about censorship it is about complicated relationships and how peoples relationships can change due to disgust.