Right. Censorship is accomplished economically. The government doesn't ban content; it simply is the only legal owner of military hardware in the country, and will allow near-unlimited use of that hardware for content that promotes the military; that hardware is entirely unavailable for content critical of the military.
Is this better than explicit censorship? That's more of an open question.
> that hardware is entirely unavailable for content critical of the military.
It's not directly available. As in, you can't film on a US naval vessel or on a US military base without their support. Stock footage or footage from public spaces are allowed. You may also be able to get the support of another country or make use of mothballed or otherwise decommissioned systems if you have the right connections and money.
I think it's pretty inarguably better? The alternative is never being allowed to be critical of the military at all. You don't need an f-35 or a tank for a documentary on American war crimes.
Is this better than explicit censorship? That's more of an open question.