Drudge Porn
August 8, 2003 8:50 AM   Subscribe

I can't really think of any good reason why a major news venue would use a pornographic image on their main page. (Not safe for work!)
posted by MrAnonymous (19 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: the people have spoken. not a news source, not pornography.



 
link doesn't work

Go here

But, what's wrong with a little boobies to start your day?
posted by Stynxno at 8:53 AM on August 8, 2003


I can't think of any good reason why a person would post this to MetaFilter.
posted by eyeballkid at 8:54 AM on August 8, 2003


Only in America do bare breasts equal pornography. What a country! And pardon my scoff, but Matt Drudge? *scoff*
posted by RylandDotNet at 8:55 AM on August 8, 2003


I can't think of any good reason why a person would consider the Drudge Report a "major news source."
posted by vraxoin at 8:55 AM on August 8, 2003


i can't see anything remotely pornographic. nope, no turgid organs, no penetration, no simulated sex. where the frickin' pr0n, mr. anonymous???
posted by quonsar at 8:56 AM on August 8, 2003


Well, I don't think it's pornographic, but I do understand your point. It certainly is an interesting editorial decision.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:56 AM on August 8, 2003


Sorry about the link.

Okay, here's my point:

Do a lot of people read Drudge? Yes.
Do a lot of people read it at work? Yes.
Would your boss like to see you looking at boobies at work? No.
posted by MrAnonymous at 8:58 AM on August 8, 2003


Only in America do bare breasts equal pornography.

Amen.

I can't think of any good reason why a person would consider the Drudge Report a "major news source."

Amen.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:59 AM on August 8, 2003


go read the sun. UK's biggest selling paper and loads of boobies.

tremendous.

link not safe for americans... :o)
posted by Frasermoo at 9:00 AM on August 8, 2003


Drudge, like many other websites, has an email address where you can contact them about their choice of content. If you scroll down far enough, you can see it.
posted by eyeballkid at 9:00 AM on August 8, 2003


Tame.

What Frasermoo said. Also The Daily Star have "Page 3 Babes" topless on, er, page 3 every day. For no other reason than they can.

[Also NSFA!]
posted by garyh at 9:02 AM on August 8, 2003


Arnold *is* a turgid organ. Problem solved. ;)
posted by trondant at 9:04 AM on August 8, 2003


What vraxoin said. "Major news venue"? Please.
posted by Vidiot at 9:04 AM on August 8, 2003


please substitute the word boobies above for 'jambatnas'.

been cracking me up all day and forgot to use it.
posted by Frasermoo at 9:04 AM on August 8, 2003


Thanks for the mammaries.
posted by alumshubby at 9:04 AM on August 8, 2003


Drudge is not a major news venue
A small, grainy, cropped shot of a woman's bare chest is not a pornographic image


It's also very likely that this is not worthy of a front page post
posted by matteo at 9:06 AM on August 8, 2003


Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!
posted by garyh at 9:08 AM on August 8, 2003


i, for one, welcome our new porn overlords.
posted by bhayes82 at 9:11 AM on August 8, 2003


I am, garyh, I am...


*fap* *fap* *fap*
posted by jammer at 9:11 AM on August 8, 2003


« Older Victory Gin, Anyone? Perhaps a Victory Cigarette?   |   Canada's Supreme Court Trashes Citizens' Property... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments