Progressives fail to notice which Fox blurred out teh boobies

[martybegan]

So basically it was a local affiliate that blurred out the abstract hooters, not Fox News.

Leftist Media Which Censored Charlie Hebdo Cartoons Is Now Goofing on Fox News For Allegedly Censoring Breasts From Picasso Painting


Vince Coglianese on Twitter . lachlan Here s how Fox News Channel aired it Tuesday for instance. http t.co xWPPN8YV1L

 

[Pogo]

So basically it was a local affiliate that blurred out the abstract hooters, not Fox News.

Leftist Media Which Censored Charlie Hebdo Cartoons Is Now Goofing on Fox News For Allegedly Censoring Breasts From Picasso Painting


Vince Coglianese on Twitter . lachlan Here s how Fox News Channel aired it Tuesday for instance. http t.co xWPPN8YV1L

WNYW ("Fox 5") is owned by Fox -- it's the flagship station. Rupert Murdoch bought 20 Century Fox, which is why he has the name "Fox News".

What's with the incessant "Progressives" label? You know that's 100 years ago, right?
And even if they were still around, what would it have to do with who owns a particular TV channel?

 

[martybegan]

So basically it was a local affiliate that blurred out the abstract hooters, not Fox News.

Leftist Media Which Censored Charlie Hebdo Cartoons Is Now Goofing on Fox News For Allegedly Censoring Breasts From Picasso Painting


Vince Coglianese on Twitter . lachlan Here s how Fox News Channel aired it Tuesday for instance. http t.co xWPPN8YV1L

WNYW ("Fox 5") is owned by Fox -- it's the flagship station. Rupert Murdoch bought 20 Century Fox, which is why he has the name "Fox News".

What's with the incessant "Progressives" label? You know that's 100 years ago, right?
And even if they were still around, what would it have to do with who owns a particular TV channel?

It was called out as Fox News, it was not Fox News, Fox News actually broadcast the boobs un-blurred. The whole kerfluffle from progs was about Fox news being prudish, and they were wrong.

And I use progressive because modern progressive statists are not liberals in the classical sense.

 

[Pogo]

So basically it was a local affiliate that blurred out the abstract hooters, not Fox News.

Leftist Media Which Censored Charlie Hebdo Cartoons Is Now Goofing on Fox News For Allegedly Censoring Breasts From Picasso Painting


Vince Coglianese on Twitter . lachlan Here s how Fox News Channel aired it Tuesday for instance. http t.co xWPPN8YV1L

WNYW ("Fox 5") is owned by Fox -- it's the flagship station. Rupert Murdoch bought 20 Century Fox, which is why he has the name "Fox News".

What's with the incessant "Progressives" label? You know that's 100 years ago, right?
And even if they were still around, what would it have to do with who owns a particular TV channel?

It was called out as Fox News, it was not Fox News, Fox News actually broadcast the boobs un-blurred. The whole kerfluffle from progs was about Fox news being prudish, and they were wrong.

And I use progressive because modern progressive statists are not liberals in the classical sense.

It's the same company.

Remember that case with the local Fox station in Florida where Monsanto pressured Fox to revise and/or kill the story? That was Fox Corporate -- in New York -- that they sicced their lawyers on.

 

[martybegan]

So basically it was a local affiliate that blurred out the abstract hooters, not Fox News.

Leftist Media Which Censored Charlie Hebdo Cartoons Is Now Goofing on Fox News For Allegedly Censoring Breasts From Picasso Painting


Vince Coglianese on Twitter . lachlan Here s how Fox News Channel aired it Tuesday for instance. http t.co xWPPN8YV1L

WNYW ("Fox 5") is owned by Fox -- it's the flagship station. Rupert Murdoch bought 20 Century Fox, which is why he has the name "Fox News".

What's with the incessant "Progressives" label? You know that's 100 years ago, right?
And even if they were still around, what would it have to do with who owns a particular TV channel?

It was called out as Fox News, it was not Fox News, Fox News actually broadcast the boobs un-blurred. The whole kerfluffle from progs was about Fox news being prudish, and they were wrong.

And I use progressive because modern progressive statists are not liberals in the classical sense.

It's the same company.

Remember that case with the local Fox station in Florida where Monsanto pressured Fox to revise and/or kill the story? That was Fox Corporate -- in New York -- that they sicced their lawyers on.

Yes, but it wasn't FOX NEWS that did the blurring, FOX NEWS in fact showed the painting un-altered. Doesn't that lead to it being more a local decision than one at the corporate level?

Is it that you can't admit that the original story was wrong, or that you won't admit it?

 

[Ravi]

We get it. FOX uses boobs to get viewers but thinks art is obscene.

 

[Vandalshandle]

This issue is going to keep me awake all night! I'm actually glad that someone has come up with something that will divert my attention from perpetual war, and financial ruin of the nation....

 

[Pogo]

So basically it was a local affiliate that blurred out the abstract hooters, not Fox News.

Leftist Media Which Censored Charlie Hebdo Cartoons Is Now Goofing on Fox News For Allegedly Censoring Breasts From Picasso Painting


Vince Coglianese on Twitter . lachlan Here s how Fox News Channel aired it Tuesday for instance. http t.co xWPPN8YV1L

WNYW ("Fox 5") is owned by Fox -- it's the flagship station. Rupert Murdoch bought 20 Century Fox, which is why he has the name "Fox News".

What's with the incessant "Progressives" label? You know that's 100 years ago, right?
And even if they were still around, what would it have to do with who owns a particular TV channel?

It was called out as Fox News, it was not Fox News, Fox News actually broadcast the boobs un-blurred. The whole kerfluffle from progs was about Fox news being prudish, and they were wrong.

And I use progressive because modern progressive statists are not liberals in the classical sense.

It's the same company.

Remember that case with the local Fox station in Florida where Monsanto pressured Fox to revise and/or kill the story? That was Fox Corporate -- in New York -- that they sicced their lawyers on.

Yes, but it wasn't FOX NEWS that did the blurring, FOX NEWS in fact showed the painting un-altered. Doesn't that lead to it being more a local decision than one at the corporate level?

Is it that you can't admit that the original story was wrong, or that you won't admit it?

Distinction without a difference. Who gives a shit?

This is worth starting a thread over? Really?

 

[martybegan]

So basically it was a local affiliate that blurred out the abstract hooters, not Fox News.

Leftist Media Which Censored Charlie Hebdo Cartoons Is Now Goofing on Fox News For Allegedly Censoring Breasts From Picasso Painting


Vince Coglianese on Twitter . lachlan Here s how Fox News Channel aired it Tuesday for instance. http t.co xWPPN8YV1L

WNYW ("Fox 5") is owned by Fox -- it's the flagship station. Rupert Murdoch bought 20 Century Fox, which is why he has the name "Fox News".

What's with the incessant "Progressives" label? You know that's 100 years ago, right?
And even if they were still around, what would it have to do with who owns a particular TV channel?

It was called out as Fox News, it was not Fox News, Fox News actually broadcast the boobs un-blurred. The whole kerfluffle from progs was about Fox news being prudish, and they were wrong.

And I use progressive because modern progressive statists are not liberals in the classical sense.

It's the same company.

Remember that case with the local Fox station in Florida where Monsanto pressured Fox to revise and/or kill the story? That was Fox Corporate -- in New York -- that they sicced their lawyers on.

Yes, but it wasn't FOX NEWS that did the blurring, FOX NEWS in fact showed the painting un-altered. Doesn't that lead to it being more a local decision than one at the corporate level?

Is it that you can't admit that the original story was wrong, or that you won't admit it?

Distinction without a difference. Who gives a shit?

This is worth starting a thread over? Really?

Its the same as "its not the crime, its the cover-up". Here its not the content its how the content is presented.

The information given is false. It wasn't Fox News. Evidently actual truth is something progressives don't worry about.

Why can't you just admit the people who started this were wrong?

 

[martybegan]

This issue is going to keep me awake all night! I'm actually glad that someone has come up with something that will divert my attention from perpetual war, and financial ruin of the nation....

People not being able to admit when they were wrong IS a real issue.

 

[BlueGin]

This issue is going to keep me awake all night! I'm actually glad that someone has come up with something that will divert my attention from perpetual war, and financial ruin of the nation....

People not being able to admit when they were wrong IS a real issue.

Libs lie. It's what they do.

 

[Pogo]

WNYW ("Fox 5") is owned by Fox -- it's the flagship station. Rupert Murdoch bought 20 Century Fox, which is why he has the name "Fox News".

What's with the incessant "Progressives" label? You know that's 100 years ago, right?
And even if they were still around, what would it have to do with who owns a particular TV channel?

It was called out as Fox News, it was not Fox News, Fox News actually broadcast the boobs un-blurred. The whole kerfluffle from progs was about Fox news being prudish, and they were wrong.

And I use progressive because modern progressive statists are not liberals in the classical sense.

It's the same company.

Remember that case with the local Fox station in Florida where Monsanto pressured Fox to revise and/or kill the story? That was Fox Corporate -- in New York -- that they sicced their lawyers on.

Yes, but it wasn't FOX NEWS that did the blurring, FOX NEWS in fact showed the painting un-altered. Doesn't that lead to it being more a local decision than one at the corporate level?

Is it that you can't admit that the original story was wrong, or that you won't admit it?

Distinction without a difference. Who gives a shit?

This is worth starting a thread over? Really?

Its the same as "its not the crime, its the cover-up". Here its not the content its how the content is presented.

The information given is false. It wasn't Fox News. Evidently actual truth is something progressives don't worry about.

Why can't you just admit the people who started this were wrong?

Again "Fox 5" -- the channel -- IS Fox. It's their flagship station. Are you trying to draw a distinction between the channel that shows up on 5 and the cable channel?

If you're trying to tell us WNYW Channel 5 doesn't exclusively do news -- well neither does the cable channel.

I don't get what your point is. What exactly is lost by not specifying "WNYW"?

 

[martybegan]

It was called out as Fox News, it was not Fox News, Fox News actually broadcast the boobs un-blurred. The whole kerfluffle from progs was about Fox news being prudish, and they were wrong.

And I use progressive because modern progressive statists are not liberals in the classical sense.

It's the same company.

Remember that case with the local Fox station in Florida where Monsanto pressured Fox to revise and/or kill the story? That was Fox Corporate -- in New York -- that they sicced their lawyers on.

Yes, but it wasn't FOX NEWS that did the blurring, FOX NEWS in fact showed the painting un-altered. Doesn't that lead to it being more a local decision than one at the corporate level?

Is it that you can't admit that the original story was wrong, or that you won't admit it?

Distinction without a difference. Who gives a shit?

This is worth starting a thread over? Really?

Its the same as "its not the crime, its the cover-up". Here its not the content its how the content is presented.

The information given is false. It wasn't Fox News. Evidently actual truth is something progressives don't worry about.

Why can't you just admit the people who started this were wrong?

Again "Fox 5" -- the channel -- IS Fox. It's their flagship station. Are you trying to draw a distinction between the channel that shows up on 5 and the cable channel?

If you're trying to tell us WNYW Channel 5 doesn't exclusively do news -- well neither does the cable channel.

I don't get what your point is. What exactly is lost by not specifying "WNYW"?

But if it was an expression of the overall corporation, why did fox news not censor it, and the locals did? Why did the person who broke this say it was done by fox news? Why hasn't their been a correction?

 

[Pogo]

 

[Ravi]

Looks like Poppa Faux got embarrassed by Baby Faux censoring art.

 

[martybegan]

Looks like Poppa Faux got embarrassed by Baby Faux censoring art.

No, it looks like some prog lemming posted something without actually reading it, and you fellow mouth breathing travelers go along with it because it fits "The Narrative"

 

[Ravi]

Looks like Poppa Faux got embarrassed by Baby Faux censoring art.

No, it looks like some prog lemming posted something without actually reading it, and you fellow mouth breathing travelers go along with it because it fits "The Narrative"

lol

 

[Vandalshandle]

This issue is going to keep me awake all night! I'm actually glad that someone has come up with something that will divert my attention from perpetual war, and financial ruin of the nation....

People not being able to admit when they were wrong IS a real issue.

Libs lie. It's what they do.

I never lie on Fridays.

 

[Hossfly]

 

[Pogo]