This is foolishness, hyperbole, and ignorance.
Let's try this thought experiment instead.
Suppose one day it came out that Intel had decided to become a really big sponsor of AnandTech. At first this just meant Intel ads everywhere, far more than ever before. But then the editorial nature of the articles seemed to slant more and more towards Intel. Positive articles about Intel's competitors disappeared, and negative stories about the company were suppressed. Then Anand told the forum directors that he didn't want to see negative comments about Intel on the forums either -- such posts were to be deleted, and the ones who wrote them warned and then banned if they persisted.
Would this represent a form of censorship? IMO, yes. Would Anand have every right to do this if he wished? Again, IMO, yes.
But we all assume and hope he would not, because the value of AnandTech is based, at least in part, on Anand's ability to be a straight-shooter not corrupted by his revenue source. If he did as I described above nobody would say it wasn't his choice to make, but nobody here would view AT the same way ever again. And most of us would say that Intel bore at least some of the blame for what happened.
This doesn't happen with Anand because he knows his reputation for objectivity is important, and he doesn't put himself in a position of being beholden to a large contributor. PBS needs to do the same.