Hasidic Newspaper Removes Clinton, Another Woman From Iconic Photo

[ishutteratthethought]

Thought I would share this. Some of you may have heard this story.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...moves-clinton-another-woman-from-iconic-photo

How they planned on getting this through without anyone noticing is beyond me, maybe they just don't care...not sure.
I found it interesting how they do not print images of women in their newspaper. I will not subscribe to this rag anytime soon.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

They're a religious publication, and their religion forbids it, so they don't do it. I doubt they care what you think. Its ignorant superstition, but so is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

 

[jglass]

Oh boy, this should be good.

 

[erikg]

They should just not have run the photo. They have violated the terms of use, as the image came from the White House, not one of their own photographers.

 

[CGW]

Thought I would share this. Some of you may have heard this story.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...moves-clinton-another-woman-from-iconic-photo

How they planned on getting this through without anyone noticing is beyond me, maybe they just don't care...not sure.
I found it interesting how they do not print images of women in their newspaper. I will not subscribe to this rag anytime soon.

Are you sure Hillary wasn't edited into the original photo? Just asking.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

This is being fairly widely reported. Here it is in Jewish Week--

http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/...paper_photoshops_hillary_clinton_iconic_photo

which got it from a blog called "Failed Messiah"--

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/fa...s-hillary-clinton-from-osama-picture-567.html

which got it from a blog called "Critical Minyan" which I can't seem to locate.

 

[ishutteratthethought]

"They should just not have run the photo. They have violated the terms of use, as the image came from the White House, not one of their own photographers. "

Not only terms of use but the fact that the image is manipulated and therefore untrue violates the publics trust. I would put more trust in the Onion before I would believe anything that came out of this piece of crap.

 

[CGW]

Tell me I'm wrong but you don't seem like a regular Der Tzitung reader.

 

[ishutteratthethought]

Tell me I'm wrong but you don't seem like a regular Der Tzitung reader.

ok...i confess....I am not

 

[MattKing]

Ironically, if you were a regular reader and someone in the newspaper's target audience, most likely you would have been outraged if Hilary Clinton and the other woman had been left in the photo.

 

[CGW]

ok...i confess....I am not

Then stop embarrassing yourself. You don't have a dog in this fight, if indeed it is a "fight." Perhaps the moderators can close this?

 

[Ian Grant]

Smack of Stalinism, but then Far right and Far left are almost one & the same anyway.

If people don't like reality then they have the right to opt out but not publish lies by doctoring copy-write images.

Ian

 

[Ottrdaemmerung]

I agree with erikg.

People have the right to believe any religion they wish, or none, as long as it harms no one. Arguments pro-theism or pro-atheism are moot because one cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a Divine Being (or Beings), and any supposed evidence for either case is therefore a subjective matter.

That said, Der Tzitung violated original photographer Pete Souza's copyright by altering the image. Photoshopping the women out of the photo is an alteration of the original and thus a violation of copyright, and is also possibly an act of photographic libel, misrepresenting the facts of the news story. If the newspaper would not print images of the women in the photograph because the paper's religious slant prohibits doing so (or for any reason, really), then the photograph should have either not been used, or the women should have been censored: blacked out to simply show that although they were part of the photograph, they could not be shown.

 

[thegman]

Probably the best thing to do in the case of most religious idiocies is to roll your eyes and continue as normal.

 

[CGW]

I agree with erikg.

People have the right to believe any religion they wish, or none, as long as it harms no one. Arguments pro-theism or pro-atheism are moot because one cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a Divine Being (or Beings), and any supposed evidence for either case is therefore a subjective matter.

That said, Der Tzitung violated original photographer Pete Souza's copyright by altering the image. Photoshopping the women out of the photo is an alteration of the original and thus a violation of copyright, and is also possibly an act of photographic libel, misrepresenting the facts of the news story. If the newspaper would not print images of the women in the photograph because the paper's religious slant prohibits doing so (or for any reason, really), then the photograph should have either not been used, or the women should have been censored: blacked out to simply show that although they were part of the photograph, they could not be shown.

Unbelievable. Any idea what the circulation of Der Tzitung is? Talk about typhoons in a teacup. Any clue why the photo was altered?

 

[36cm2]

The photo was altered because it was potentially "sexually suggestive". I thought the most ironic aspect of the editing is that several religious scholars have suggested it violates another tenet of that religion prohibiting "deceipt". Pick your poison.

 

[ishutteratthethought]

Then stop embarrassing yourself. You don't have a dog in this fight, if indeed it is a "fight." Perhaps the moderators can close this?

It is not a fight my friend, it is the altering of a historical photograph to appease the editors of a newspaper. This paper is not reporting news but attempting to alter it to their liking...sound familiar?

You seem to be upset, I was just delivering the article because I believe it was unethical and would be an intersting topic, and for the moderator to close this, i would think it would be unlikely.

 

[erikg]

Unbelievable. Any idea what the circulation of Der Tzitung is? Talk about typhoons in a teacup. Any clue why the photo was altered?

Doesn't matter. They had no right to do so.

 

[Alan W]

When I saw the title I thought someone had a photo of Bill minus Monica!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Orthodox Jewish paper apologizes for doctored pic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110509/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden_doctored_photo

The paper said Monday that its photo editor had not read the "fine print" accompanying the White House photo that forbade any changes. The paper says it has sent its "regrets and apologies" to the White House and State Department.

An editor at another weekly that covers Jewish issues addressed why the paper might have altered the image. The Forward managing editor Lil Swanson says some ultra-Orthodox Jews refuse to run photos of women because they believe such images are "immodest."

 

[CGW]

It is not a fight my friend, it is the altering of a historical photograph to appease the editors of a newspaper. This paper is not reporting news but attempting to alter it to their liking...sound familiar?

You seem to be upset, I was just delivering the article because I believe it was unethical and would be an intersting topic, and for the moderator to close this, i would think it would be unlikely.

Ever consider before posting how many people saw the original relative to the doctored version? Think you need to review it from that perspective instead of faking outrage over a non-issue.

 

[Vaughn]

I suppose it as much as a policy/belief of considering it immodest to have women seen as equals with, and working with, men in the political and social spheres as it is a case of sexual/gender modesty.

But as CGW suggested, it is a newspaper put out by and for the faithful of this particular sect of the Jewish faith. The newspaper has apologized to the White House and State Department, and the lessons have hopefully been learned. I personally have learned a little by this thread being started, for which I thank ishutteratthethought.

Vaughn

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If anyone is curious about the actual issues involved, then look at the comments under the "Failed Messiah" blog entry I linked above, and be prepared to Google a few words that may be unfamiliar. To understand the context of the blog, recognize that there are many different orthodox Jewish sects that have differing views on many issues (for instance they don't all have the same standards for what is kosher, and some will not buy meat from a butcher outside their group, even if many other groups would consider said butcher to be strictly kosher), and the blog is authored by a dissenter and attracts readers and comments of other Jews who grew up Orthodox and in many cases consider themselves to be observant Jews, but they may reject the insularity or other aspects of the group they were brought up in.

One thing I do wonder about is that if they regarded the image of Hillary Clinton to be "immodest"--hard to believe as it may be, but after all, she is a woman revealing her own natural hair in the presence of men outside her immediate family, and this isn't condoned among readers of Der Tzitung (transliterations from Yiddish vary--Tzitung/Tzeitung/or German Zeitung)--why, as suggested above, didn't they just black or pixelate her out, rather than Photoshopping her as if she wasn't there. Heck, they could have even Photoshopped a sheitel onto her head, if they were going to go to such an extent. Would it be more dishonest to suggest that Hillary Clinton wears a sheitel than that she wasn't in the room?

 

[billbretz]

Neither the photographers "copywrite" or the terms under which the photo is made available are an issue in this case. It is a photo made by a government photographer paid for by taxes, when released it is in the public domain.

Despite the publication's backpedaling regarding the terms, the manipulation would be considered protected speech and the terms are unenforceable.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Neither the photographers "copywrite" or the terms under which the photo is made available are an issue in this case. It is a photo made by a government photographer paid for by taxes, when released it is in the public domain.

Despite the publication's backpedaling regarding the terms, the manipulation would be considered protected speech and the terms are unenforceable.

1. The photographs are not in the public domain.
2. The photographs are copyrighted.
3. There are legally binding conditions for use.
4. The copyright is enforceable.

So you are 100% wrong on at least four counts.

This might be a good time to gracefully back out.

Steve