Self-censorship is not unethical when it based on good judgment; it’s entirely necessary. And it would be a more pleasant world if more people in the media would practice it from time to time.

Even if this minor PR disaster had resulted from an intentional act on WHNT’s part to suppress the Siegelman story, neither Congress nor the FCC have any power whatsoever to force any TV station to carry a program it chooses not to carry. Freedom of the press necessarily entails the freedom to self-censor.

The viewing public has every right to complain, though, and it has done so - rather loudly and even obnoxiously in some cases. That is a very appropriate way to handle situations like this one.

I don’t believe there was a conspiracy. I believe that the vast majority of employees at WHNT abhor the thought of censorship, regardless of their leanings.

Now here’s my latest question: As a responsible journalist, would’nt you ascertain the actual source of the failure before making a blanket assumption that it was an “act of God”? After all, it takes only one misguided individual with an adequate index finger to switch the channel on IRD 3 and interrupt the video feed on IRD 1. Why not just investigate the actual cause before making claims that make you look bad when they are proven wrong? So far EVERY mouthpiece at WHNT has declared that the very notion of tampering is out of the question, when that can’t possibly know that for sure. As responsible journalists (as opposed to station mouthpieces)why couldn’t they just say that the cause of the problem is under investigation? If, as unlikely as it is, an investigation finds out the feed was interrupted by, lets say, a Siegelman supporter or disgruntled employee trying to make the station look bad, then the claims that it WAS’NT a conspiracy will be drowned out by an even greater din. I know everyone at the station is going beserk trying to tamp down this flame, but if the cause is discovered to be even remotely suspicious they’re going to have an inferno on their hands.