Yes and no. There is no free press as such anymore. When the heads of the print industry attend and refuse to cover the actions and goals of the Bildeberg meetings, that is not freedom, nor profit driven as such - that is political manipulation. I worked in print journalism, and the blackmail and political posturing involved in what is printed results in anything but free press. Even Fox's Murdoch is a member of the CFR. The same goes for A&E, whose parent company is in the tank for the liberal agenda and the goals of same group of one worlders as the print media. Don't ever believe there is not political control of the media, in all forms. The lowly shoves inserted that profit a paper, come with a control over the content in that paper. Print the wrong things and the shoves disappear with the money - politics. Now, if you consider profit from political control okay, instead of profit based on true productivity, then, I guess it is profit driven.

A&E is a private business. They have the right to fire an employee for his actions. GQ is private business they have a right to publish anything they want. This is freedom of press. The individual exercised to right to an opinion and suffered the consequences for it. This is the market making it's mark on a civil rights issue, which I believe most of us are in favor of instead of government forced action to correct civil rights issues. Both companies are trying to make money and if they feel having someone who seemingly is against gays or colored people on their network is going to hurt their bottom line they should have the right to fire them. What do you suggest? We force A&E to keep him on the show?

Who does a GQ interview! Every time I think of that magazine I think of a devoted reader who worked in the same Congressional office I did, who propositioned me almost daily. Dweeb!
This whole thing shows A&E's inability to stand up to political correctness. GQ set the stage for a politically incorrect response, and got it. I have no respect for either, as they both are instrumental in making politically correct speech and the inability to express an opinion, outlawed by law.
The focus should not be on who, but why we cannot say what we want, as long as we do not incite violence. Or should we just burn the Constituion and Bill of Rights!

Don't Marxist ultimately eat their own?
Isn't that the point of Socialism?
To consume the product the creators, the producers, and to give it to the least common denominator so that everyone has the same amount and no one has a motive to excel except to please the state and for personal satisfaction?
Then when all their creators, producers, get a clue and either go to prison, quit, or flee (if allowed), they turn on other countries and try to include them in their wonderful experiment.
Economic cannibalism is not a viable system, though it seems to work WONDERFULLY short term... .

The ratings stunt theory is certainly viable.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/satire