Graphic for FOX News promo about “Porn in the USA” is a little too graphic.

A FOX News Channel promo for an upcoming segment of Your World with Neil Cavuto about protecting kids from porn included a screenshot from a typical porn site. The graphic features your typical big breasted blonde with legs spead being porked by some random guy. Being the good, upright, conservative news source that FOX News Channel supposedly is they made sure to blur out the woman’s one exposed tit, but apparently they overlooked the huge penis she’s being penetrated with. Oops. At least one alert viewer managed to snag a screen capture of the promo for those of you interested in seeing it for yourself.


I suppose one good way parents can help protect their kids from being exposed to porn is not allow them to watch the FOX News Channel. Think we’ll get a Republican outcry over this? Any demands for the FCC to do something about the rampant obscenity showing up on news channels? Surely this should rate at least as much outrage as Janet’s titty did.

Found via

20 thoughts on “Graphic for FOX News promo about “Porn in the USA” is a little too graphic.

  1. The FCC needs to fine Fox $500,000 grand for showing that just like they swore they’d do to anyone being obscene. I bet it doesn’t even get a hand slap.

  2. Lol….That was funny. Can’t believe they over looked that. Anyway, the mention of the FCC put a lovely song in my head. Anyone hear the FCC song on montypython on-line?

  3. Heh. 

    Of course, there’s a bit of a difference over what’s pretty clearly a stupid-ass (er, so to speak) goof and an intentional “catastrophic wardrobe failure,” etc.

    Not that I’m certain the FTC/Congressional regs on the matter take that into account.

    cap:  wtf (heh)

  4. That’s exactly right.  In order to be culpable in this case, FOX had to knowingly and willfully broadcast the segment. US Communications Act PDF

    The new amendment does provide a little more leeway in fining offenders that have not shown due diligence in reviewing material before broadcast. HR 3717

    FOX will probably spin it in the direction of porn sites being so aggressive that their ‘top notch’ editors had trouble editing the clip.  Apologies all around and several boot-licking commentaries for those up for re-election.

    captcha = ‘soviet’  These words are disturbing.

  5. Unfortunately, I do not think the FCC has jurisdiction … Fox is a CABLE news channel, not a broadcast station…


  6. The FCC does indeed have jurisdiction.

    [Quote]FCC actions do not impact cable TV directly. The FCC is authorized to regulate only broadcast television, which includes such networks as ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox.[/Quote]

    Excerpt from congressional discussion on HR 3717.

    Nice one elwedriddsche, Danke für das lachen.  LOL

  7. Fox on broadcast … not FOXNews Cable

    There is a distinction… it sucks, but it is a different channel

    for example MSNBC and CNN are not covered either AFAIK because they are Cable stations.

    Remember there are broadcast networks, ABC, CBC, NBC, Fox, UPN, WB, etc and then there are Cable Networks MTV, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Playboy, TNN, etc which are not broadcast over the airwaves, therefore not regulated/censored by the FCC

    If anyone can show this to be incorrect, please do as I would love to have it cleared up smile

  8. John – The FCC still has jurisdiction but ‘broadcast decency law’ doesn’t apply to cable networks, as you pointed out.  However, cable networks can be fined for showing ‘indecent nudity’ on an unscrambled channel.  They may also be fined for showing nudity during periods when ‘a large viewership may consist of children.’  FCC Cable Broadcast Facts

    I suppose it depends on how many people gripe to the FCC and FOX News.

  9. Deadscott,

    I appreciate the clarification… and I hope I didn’t come off too pissy 😀

    Maybe we should start a write in campaign to complain to the FCC ( and see if they go after Faux News as they do say Howard Stern or Janet Jackson …  snake

  10. Man, I wish I owned Join4Free… ain’t nothing better than free publicity. wink

    IMO a case could be made that the “offending organ” is quite nicely obscured by the “Slut Chat” text, after all.  Really, the blur wouldn’t serve to hide the bologna as much as bring attention to it.

    Anyone else think there might be a sudden employment opportunity in the Graphics department at FOX News today?  LOL

    (Oh, the irony: “head”)

  11. the “Cox News” channel should get a big ass fine for this, just for being stupid (or as homer would say, ‘stupid like a fox’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.