I believe Chesterton said something like, "I am not concerned about censorship of the press as I am about censorship by the press." 

I am not so much concerned about censorship of this of that person or statement as I am about the censorship of entire fact patterns or subjects. 

To see what I mean, consider the coverage of hurricane Camille. I lived in Mississippi when it hit in, I believe, 2005. It was by some measures the strongest hurricane in history and at the time all the new media had on experts telling how this marked the beginning of more extreme hurricanes due to global warming. Then, nothing. For the next ten years no hurricane made landfall. It was remarkable. The longest period without a hurricane on record, I believe. You would think that some would note that fact. 

But no, once there was another hurricane the fact that the previous 10 years had not seen a single one was never mentioned and the new global-warming caused spate of hurricanes was predicted as if the previous 10 years hadn't happened. 

This is dishonest. If you are going to note evidence that supports your theory you have to note evidence that does not support it. Maybe there is an explanation for the lack of hurricanes that is consistent with the global warming hypothesis. Maybe the unusual dearth of hurricanes can be put down to global warming. Maybe the effect of humans putting CO2 in the are is unusual variability--fewer as well as more frequent hurricanes--in established weather patterns. But what is not legitimate is to totally ignore the issue. That is dishonesty.