The imbecile Washington Times falls for a hoax

[A Perez]

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]

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]

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?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I wish our network TV stations would blur her face.

 

[Dot Com]

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?

 

[blackhawk]

Not the first time someone in the media has fallen for a hoax and won't be the last.

 

[Mr. H.]

They were only trying to make her look more attractive!

 

[depotoo]

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?

 

[Ernie S.]

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]

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?

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"