The imbecile Washington Times falls for a hoax

A Perez

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2015
Messages
1,090
Reaction score
223
Points
140
The Washignton Times, a website eloved by right-wingers, had an article with the following headline recently: "
Michelle Obama’s face blurred by Saudi state television, although claim disputed."

Obvious question: If X is disputed, why do you say X happened?

The claim turned out to be completely false as Saudi TV did not blur Michelle Obama's face. This did not keep a fantastically naive, maybe Gold Member of USmessageboard to spread the news without being even a bit skeptical.

Now Washington Times and the Gold Member in question have egg on their faces.

 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
40,684
Reaction score
13,368
Points
2,280
Saudis Say Michelle Obama Not Blurred on TV - Bloomberg View
Bloomberg view is the one that started it and still say it happened

The Washignton Times, a website eloved by right-wingers, had an article with the following headline recently: "
Michelle Obama’s face blurred by Saudi state television, although claim disputed."

Obvious question: If X is disputed, why do you say X happened?

The claim turned out to be completely false as Saudi TV did not blur Michelle Obama's face. This did not keep a fantastically naive, maybe Gold Member of USmessageboard to spread the news without being even a bit skeptical.

Now Washington Times and the Gold Member in question have egg on their faces.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,499
Reaction score
22,518
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Saudis Say Michelle Obama Not Blurred on TV - Bloomberg View
Bloomberg view is the one that started it and still say it happened

The Washignton Times, a website eloved by right-wingers, had an article with the following headline recently: "
Michelle Obama’s face blurred by Saudi state television, although claim disputed."

Obvious question: If X is disputed, why do you say X happened?

The claim turned out to be completely false as Saudi TV did not blur Michelle Obama's face. This did not keep a fantastically naive, maybe Gold Member of USmessageboard to spread the news without being even a bit skeptical.

Now Washington Times and the Gold Member in question have egg on their faces.

That would be a damn good trick, since your Bloomberg link is dated January 28 and the Moonie times link is dated January 27-- a day before. So you're saying they got it from Bloomberg in the future? :oops:
 

Dot Com

Nullius in verba
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
52,842
Reaction score
7,862
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, NoVA
Saudis Say Michelle Obama Not Blurred on TV - Bloomberg View
Bloomberg view is the one that started it and still say it happened

The Washignton Times, a website eloved by right-wingers, had an article with the following headline recently: "
Michelle Obama’s face blurred by Saudi state television, although claim disputed."

Obvious question: If X is disputed, why do you say X happened?

The claim turned out to be completely false as Saudi TV did not blur Michelle Obama's face. This did not keep a fantastically naive, maybe Gold Member of USmessageboard to spread the news without being even a bit skeptical.

Now Washington Times and the Gold Member in question have egg on their faces.

That would be a damn good trick, since your Bloomberg link is dated January 28 and the Moonie times link is dated January 27-- a day before. So you're saying they got it from Bloomberg in the future? :oops:
:popcorn:
 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
40,684
Reaction score
13,368
Points
2,280
If you had read my link you would have seen this-

(The original version of this article published Jan. 27 was updated to include comment from the Saudi Arabian government and reports that a Saudi network aired undoctored footage of Michelle Obama's arrival in Riyadh. The text and headline were updated, with an editors' note explaining the changes. For technical reasons, the Internet timestamp did not change when the updated version was published. The new timestamp is reflected here.)


Saudis Say Michelle Obama Not Blurred on TV - Bloomberg View
Bloomberg view is the one that started it and still say it happened

The Washignton Times, a website eloved by right-wingers, had an article with the following headline recently: "
Michelle Obama’s face blurred by Saudi state television, although claim disputed."

Obvious question: If X is disputed, why do you say X happened?

The claim turned out to be completely false as Saudi TV did not blur Michelle Obama's face. This did not keep a fantastically naive, maybe Gold Member of USmessageboard to spread the news without being even a bit skeptical.

Now Washington Times and the Gold Member in question have egg on their faces.

That would be a damn good trick, since your Bloomberg link is dated January 28 and the Moonie times link is dated January 27-- a day before. So you're saying they got it from Bloomberg in the future? :oops:
 

Ernie S.

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
34,702
Reaction score
9,175
Points
1,340
Location
Sweet Home Alabama
So someone saw altered videos on facebook and assumed they came from Saudi TV? Not a big stretch. Where did the obscured videos come from and are there copies?
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,499
Reaction score
22,518
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
If you had read my link you would have seen this-

(The original version of this article published Jan. 27 was updated to include comment from the Saudi Arabian government and reports that a Saudi network aired undoctored footage of Michelle Obama's arrival in Riyadh. The text and headline were updated, with an editors' note explaining the changes. For technical reasons, the Internet timestamp did not change when the updated version was published. The new timestamp is reflected here.)


Saudis Say Michelle Obama Not Blurred on TV - Bloomberg View
Bloomberg view is the one that started it and still say it happened

The Washignton Times, a website eloved by right-wingers, had an article with the following headline recently: "
Michelle Obama’s face blurred by Saudi state television, although claim disputed."

Obvious question: If X is disputed, why do you say X happened?

The claim turned out to be completely false as Saudi TV did not blur Michelle Obama's face. This did not keep a fantastically naive, maybe Gold Member of USmessageboard to spread the news without being even a bit skeptical.

Now Washington Times and the Gold Member in question have egg on their faces.

That would be a damn good trick, since your Bloomberg link is dated January 28 and the Moonie times link is dated January 27-- a day before. So you're saying they got it from Bloomberg in the future? :oops:


:haha:

Still doesn't work. You see, the Moonie article isn't attributed to Bloomberg on any date. It's attributed to their own writer.

Byline:
"By Jessica Chasmar - The Washington Times - Tuesday, January 27, 2015"
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top