All set up, DIRECTTV backs out. Here's an easy way to see the ad and send an email.

Does that really qualify, though, as a "blatant act of censorship", "preventing millions of U.S. households from learning the truth"? Surely, other wide-reaching approachable media networks exist. Failure to have one's message accepted by one media company -- in a marketplace that contains several -- is unfortunate for the messengers and their cause. But calling this "censorship" strikes me as an alarmist plea for attention; I believe the word is weakened by its use here.

Another case of corporate fascism:
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/DD6E3476-DCCD-48A0-9DDB-733FB51E31C8/

This is why media outlets should not be own solely by private interests.

patch: I'm not sure - you'll note I didn't use the word. The clip does illustrate the fact that it is extremely difficult for some points of view to gain a hearing in the USA. International coverage of the Gaza crisis is far different from that which we get here. It is still rather unusual for US media outlets to treat Israel and Palestinians even-handedly.