Some people (coughcoughmecoughcough) think that Fox News is really little more than the communications arm of the Republican Party, one utterly unwilling to brook disagreeable viewpoints or to foster anything other than a right-wing-checkered view of national and global affairs.

Not unexpectedly, suits at Fox have always disputed this characterization, arguing forcefully to be recognized as a news-gathering outfit with all of the independence and legitimacy of the New York Times or CBS News or the Washington Post.

And of course, what better way for Fox to prove said legitimacy than by tossing a disagreeable guest off the air…for accusing Fox News of being the communications arm of the Republican Party?

That's what happened recently after the network abruptly aborted an interview with author and former Post reporter Thomas E. Ricks after Ricks, whose book The Generals examines the history of American military leadership, claimed Fox News "hyped" the story of the attack on the US embassy in Libya to undermine President Obama's reelection chances…

JON SCOTT (co-host): Pressure mounting on the Obama administration over its response to the deadly attack on our consulate in Benghazi, as [Fox News correspondent] Catherine Herridge reported just minutes ago. Several top GOP lawmakers are backing off their criticism of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, instead focusing on the White House. Two senators even expressing concerns about a possible White House cover-up. Let's talk about it with Tom Ricks. He is author of The Generals. He has spent decades covering our military. He joins us now.
Senator John McCain said in the past he would block any attempt to nominate Susan Rice to become U.N. -- I'm sorry, secretary of state. She's currently the U.N. ambassador. He seems to be backing away from that. What do you make of it?
RICKS: I think that Benghazi generally was hyped, by this network especially, and that now that the campaign is over, I think he's backing off a little bit. They're not going to stop Susan Rice from being secretary of state.
SCOTT: When you have four people dead, including the first dead U.N. ambassador -- U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years, how do you call that hype?
RICKS: How many security contractors died in Iraq, do you know?
SCOTT: I don't.
RICKS: No. Nobody does, because nobody cared. We know that several hundred died, but there was never an official count done of security contractors dead in Iraq. So when I see this focus on what was essentially a small firefight, I think, number one, I've covered a lot of firefights. It's impossible to figure out what happens in them sometimes. And second, I think that the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox was operating as a wing of Republican Party.
SCOTT: All right. Tom Ricks, thanks very much for joining us today.
RICKS: You're welcome.
Ricks said later that the interview, which lasted less than two minutes, was supposed to go much longer. Fox claimed Ricks privately apologized after the interview, a claim Ricks has swiftly denied. 

Whatever the case, Fox showed its ugly hand rather blatantly. For all the false equivalency that's made between Fox and its liberal counterpart MSNBC, I don't think I can ever recall watching an MSNBC host throw a guest off the air for insulting the network and/or its liberal leanings. Sure, I've seen the hyperventilating Martin Bashir grandstand. I've even seen hosts at more centrist CNN get all fired up and boot a guest, but for refusing to directly answer a question, not for running down the network.

Ricks called Fox out, and instead of the network doing what reputable news media should -- challenge what it considers untrue and give the guest an opportunity to respond to the challenge -- Fox simply pulled the plug before its viewers got an opportunity to hear too much of what a differing viewpoint sounds like. That's not fair. That's not balanced. That's not even reporting that you get to decide on.

That's a tender-hearted, thin-skinned, knee-jerk reaction to a not-unusual point of view that Fox doesn't want to entertain. Ricks clearly offended Fox News' political sensibilities and for that he was censored. 

That's not even approximating responsible journalism, of course. That's merely what propaganda machines do when you disrupt their message.