Hilary Clinton photoshopped out of situation room picture

29 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture
Hilary Clinton photoshopped out of situation room picture

Props to Stroumbo for fingering this out last night on his show

remind remind's picture

Quote:
Ultra Orthodox Hasidic newspaper Der Tzitung is telling its readers like it isn't- by editing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from the now-iconic Bin Laden raid Situation Room photo. Oy vey.

The religious paper never publishes pictures of women, as they could be considered "sexually suggestive." Apparently the presence of a woman, any woman, being all womanly and sexy all over the United States' counterterrorism efforts was too much for the editors of Der Tzitung to handle.

While saving precious vulnerable men from being driven mad with desire over the image of a woman may be in line with Der Tzitung's editors' ideas of piety, Jewish Week's Rabbi Jason Miller points out that the altered image violates a central tenet of the faith,

 

Jezebel

 

Quote:
Notice that they haven't conveyed any regrets or apologies directly to Clinton or Tomason - only to the agencies they work for. Also notice they aren't apologizing for what constitutes wiping these women out of history (which is disrespectful and just not good journalism, no matter how you try to justify it) - only for altering a photo with an explicit warning that it "may not be manipulated in any way." Wiping two woman out of a photo that shows them at one of the most defining moments of their careers hardly seems like a good way to appreciate them "for who they are and what they do."

 

http://www.styleite.com/media/hillary-clinton-photoshop-di-tzeitung-statement/

 

 

Snert Snert's picture

Interestingly -- and ironically -- both headlines sort of "wipe out" Tomason.  Why do the headlines only mention Clinton?

Dodger718

This is standard practice among many Chasidic publications. It has to do with the concept of "tznius", meaning "modesty." My wife's parents live in Israel and I remember one of the papers there airbrushing female cabinet ministers out of a picture of the incoming cabinet. They also have a policy of not using a woman's first name. So a sentence might read:"There was a meeting today between Benjamin Netanyahu and Ms. Livni" (referring to Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni).

I'm a graphic designer / art director and I remember being at a conference where someone from my agency's Tel Aviv office was talking about the challenges of making ads there because certain orthodox publications will not accept ads featuring women.

To each their own, I suppose. But they vioalted government guidelines by altering the photo. They could have just run an article with no photo rather than airbrushing history, which just seems a little creepy.

remind remind's picture

Dodger718 wrote:
To each their own, I suppose. But they vioalted government guidelines by altering the photo. They could have just run an article with no photo rather than airbrushing history, which just seems a little creepy.

Na....not going to accept 'to each their own' when they start to erase women from current news and history. They went well beyond violating government guidelines and airbrushing history. 

And it is way more than just creepy.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Dodge that seems to be the same justification as is used for the burka.  

Damn that Book and its overt misogyny.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Actually I find misogyny is not better when it springs from a religious source it is still vile.

However as to modesty and the right to reproductive health and anything else involving the person those are things that only the women herself has the right to decide.  Free will is always the key.  The real hard part is figuring where free will ends and societal pressure begins.  Overt societal pressure like that present in most fundamentalist sects is IMO incompatible with true free will.

Dodger718

If a woman chooses to wear a burka, I respect that choice as well, NS.

If a tiny little newspaper catering to an exclusive community wants to set their own policies as to what pictures tehy show, I don't have a problem with that either. It's not my source of news, for good reason, but if that's how some people choose to live, well they're not bothering anybody.

Dodger718

What are you calling misogyny? The burka or the paper's policy? I'm not Muslim and can't really speak to their religion and values but I've spent enough time in the Chasidic communities to know that there's certainly nothing misogynistic about that culture and their values.

Part of living in a multicultural society means that there are going to be people doing things differently than you do and with different values from yours. If they're not trying to impose their values on me, it's not my concern. If a Muslim wants to wear a burka and never touch alcohol, they can be my guest as long as they don't want to put a burka on my wife and daughter and take my beer away. I can certainly assure you that the Chasidic community has no interest in forcing you to grow a long beard or wear a big hat or in taking your bacon away or in prohibiting you from working on the Sabbath. They're a small community, who largely stick to themselves and, for the most part, just wish to be left to live their lives and practice their faith in peace.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Dodger718 wrote:

 I can certainly assure you that the Chasidic community has no interest in forcing you to grow a long beard or wear a big hat or in taking your bacon away or in prohibiting you from working on the Sabbath. They're a small community, who largely stick to themselves and, for the most part, just wish to be left to live their lives and practice their faith in peace.

Are we talking about the same sects?  I don't know all the byzantine workings of Jewish fundamentalist groups.  These are the types of groups I was referring to.  Don't worry I have equal venom for Born Again Xians and their misogyny based on the same idea that god made man the boss. 

Quote:

 

Police investigators who arrived at the scene of the fatal stabbing were pelted with stones by haredim protesting the planned autopsy. Reinforcements were called in to disperse the rioters.

A haredi demonstrator and eight police officers were lightly wounded during riots in Jerusalem's Mea She'arim and Geula neighborhoods over the planned autopsy, as well as over the extended remand of 16 haredim arrested during weekend disturbances in Jerusalem over the Saturday opening of the Carta parking lot.

The haredi demonstrators hurled stones at police, who responded by firing stun grenades.

On the capital's David Yelin Street, a police car was torched by haredim. No one was wounded.

While the scene of the attack is near the area where recent haredi protests have become a weekly occurrence, often resulting in violence, the neighborhood as a whole is quiet and homicides are extremely rare.

The attack also came on the heels of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's statements Sunday that he was "not willing to accept any kind of terrorism," and that he considered violence and bullying to be a sort of internal terrorism.

http://wwwtmp-origin.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArti...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMD83GXcUbY&feature=player_embedded

 

Dodger718

Your point is well taken to a dgree. Yes, in Israel where there are massive numbers of ultra-orthodox Jews and in a land that they consider a Jewish state which should be governed by Jewish law, yes, they attempt to impose their values on others in many areas.

However, in Canada or in Brooklyn where that paper is based, it's not the case. They have no interest in forcing their beleifs on you or me or on anyone else, just be left alone in peace. I don't see why they shouldn't be and why the editorial decision of a tiny newspaper written in a language very few people speak, suddenly deserves all of this attention. I think there's a degree of xenophobia and just mean spirited snickering at those people who are different from us. They didn't honour kill a girl for dressing a certain way. They didn't fly planes into buildings. They didn't bomb an abortion clinic. They photoshopped a picture. Why is it a story?

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

As long as you are saying that this is not a real newspaper you are right it doesn't matter.  

Real newspapers try to follow their traditions without ALTERING the TRUTH.  In most religions truth is seen as one of the ultimate responsibilities of any person seeking spiritual enlightenment. 

So maybe that kind of hypocrisy gets highlighted.  The other stories you referred to got a lot more MSM attention that this little piece has.  I think in the pecking order of coverage it is not undue. Do you think some stories should just not be told because they show some peoples friends and family in a stark and unflattering light.

Dodger718

No, just because they're not particularly significant.

I don't agree with the photoshopping but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it "alters the truth". The main point of the story was that a U.S. Navy SEAL team killed bin Laden. That's the story. And that the president and other administration officials were watching it unfold in the situation room. The "main thurst" of the story wasn't that there were two women in the room at the time. Shopping them out of the story doesn't change the story -bin Laden dead - anymore so than if they had photoshopped the colour of Obama's tie or had inserted a digital hat onto his head. Those are little details which are tangential to the overall story.

Jingles

Quote:
I don't agree with the photoshopping but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it "alters the truth". The main point of the story was that a U.S. Navy SEAL team killed bin Laden. That's the story. And that the president and other administration officials were watching it unfold in the situation room. The "main thurst" of the story wasn't that there were two women in the room at the time. 

Ironically, none of that is true, and she was photoshopped out of a fake news event. The photo was staged, and the White House admitted that they didn't actually watch anything happen. It was probably the NBA playoffs they were watching.

It's also ironic that she was removed by fundamentalist Israelis, since they've been erradicating Palestinian women from the face of the earth for generations while Clinton and her supporters stand aside and applaud.

Dodger718

She wasn't removed by "fundamentalist Israelis"! She was removed by a newspaper based in Brooklyn, New York. But, hey, way to use a decision by one group of people to demonize people an ocean away because they share the same religion. It would be like attacking Quebec over a decision made by a newspaper in Paris because, hey, both groups speak French!

And some wonder why people worry that those constantly attacking Israel may be anti-Semitic.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Dodger since you seem to know this particular paper and I certainly don't have the language skills to read it myself I have a question for you.  Does the editorial board of this newspaper support Israel?  If they do is that support uncritical of the human rights abuses that Arabs suffer in Israel? Has this paper ever printed article sympathetic to the cause of Palestinians?

I do not presume to know the answer so maybe you can help.  

Dodger718

Norther Shoveler, to be honest with you, I hadn't heard of this newspaper until this story broke. They dont have much of a website and I assume the paper is only available in New York and even if I could get my hands on a copy, my Yiddish language comprehension probably wouldn't suffice.

All I know is that it's a Chasidic newspaper based in Brooklyn. Btooklyn is home to several different Chasidic groups, almost all of whom are staunchly anti-zionist for religious reasons. The most favourable group to zionism would be Lubavitch but there's now way that this paper is affiliated with them cause they all speak and write in English and wouldn't have a problem with a woman's pic. The largest Chasidic group in Brooklyn is Satmar and I would assume this paper is probably affiliated with them since they're perhaps the strictest in terms of modesty and communicate in Yiddish. Satmar is vehemetly anti-zionist, including those Satmar members who live in Israel. They refuse to accept money from the state, don't vote in Israeli elections and won't even ride on public transit since it would be a tacit legitimization of the state.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Thanks for the info Dodger.  I wondered because I do know that there are fundamentalist jewish groups on both sides of the zionism question and some that have no time for the current murderous Israeli regime.   

I agree that it was a minor story for a slow news day.  It was certainly less outrageous than the Xian burning a Koran or the hoax Subaru ad based on a real video of a unthinkable act of violence that remains unpunished.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Dodger718 wrote:

This is standard practice among many Chasidic publications. It has to do with the concept of "tznius", meaning "modesty." My wife's parents live in Israel and I remember one of the papers there airbrushing female cabinet ministers out of a picture of the incoming cabinet. They also have a policy of not using a woman's first name. So a sentence might read:"There was a meeting today between Benjamin Netanyahu and Ms. Livni" (referring to Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni).

I'm a graphic designer / art director and I remember being at a conference where someone from my agency's Tel Aviv office was talking about the challenges of making ads there because certain orthodox publications will not accept ads featuring women.

If you don't think this is misogyny, then you don't know the meaning of the word.

You seem to think that as long as the Chasidic Jews don't force their twisted view of women on others outside their own community, that means they aren't misogynistic.

Dodger718

They don't even force their views on women INSIDE their community. Some people have different values than you and I do. They choose to dress differently, live their lives differently than you and I do. Doesn't make them bad people. Doesn't make them hateful. Just different.

It's worth pointing out that the vast majority of Chasidic Jews in the United States live in New York and voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton when she was twice elected to the senate there. She was always very popular among the Chasidic community. If they were so "misogynistic", do you think they'd vote for her?

Unionist

What an interesting thread.

One interesting aspect is the reflex of some babblers to connect Jews with Israel.

This is the purest anti-semitism (Jingles - hear me? - and I respect your views all the time), and it should be banished from here. I'll put it down to gross ignorance and a vulnerability to Zionist and imperialist propaganda, rather than any ill-will. Jews have nothing to do with Israel - no more than Muslims have to do with Al Qaeda. Got it? Thanks.

The other interesting aspect is the total inability to understand an alien culture. Orthodox Jews (depending on which of a myriad of sects and traditions you're talking about) "protect" women in a myriad of ways. The Shulchan Arukh details many of these. It considers them unclean when they're menstruating. They mustn't be alone with a man who is not an immediate family member. Married women shave their heads and wear wigs. It doesn't stop. Of course it's fucking misogyny of patriarchal cultures - just as foot-binding was in China - just as covering women's faces is in many societies today.

Just as our own society, which treats women like commodities, cheap labour, objects of sexual gratification and titillation, and the rest.

Dodger's dodgy efforts to paint it as "tsnius" (in modern Hebrew that would be "tsniut") is typical of every apologist. It's powerfully reminiscent of those who rationalize women covering their faces in front of men as "modesty" or "personal choice" or whatever else.

The trouble is, these are not issues for our society to get worked up over right now. We commit far bigger sins against women than airbrushing Clinton out of a photo. We need to ensure that our society, as a whole, tolerates no inequality or humiliation of women. If the sects want to carry on with their non-legalized hiding and shaving and polygamizing of women, their time will come. What we need to ensure is that we give no official or legal recognition to such practices, and are vigilant to intervene whenever any individual is being coerced.

milo204

one more reason why i can't stand religious wacko's....

airbrushing women out of pictures? c'mon, seriously?  if that isn't proof of insanity i'm not sure what is.  i'm sure they'd like to airbrush women out of everything except making babies!

 

Dodger718

Milo, people who believe differently than you do aren't necessarily "insane" or "wackos". They may just think differently than you do. And since there's nothing preventing you from choosing to get your news from thousands of other media outlets, I don't see the point in making such a big deal over what a tiny, obscure publication may have done. Live and let live.

I also would suggest that your use of terms like "wacko" are demeaning to people who suffer from mental illness through no fault of their own and is far more offensive than altering a photograph.

Unionist

Ha! Ok, I found the website of Di Tzeitung (mistransliterated in the dumb articles cited above), and [url=http://ditzeitung.com/ESW/Images/pages.pdf]here[/url] is the latest issue (May 13). It describes itself as an "independent Yiddish-language newspaper". The lead article on the front page is (of course) entitled (my translation): "Global storm over altered White House photo." Sales will mushroom!

It's obviously published by some Hasidic Jews, but it's not a "religious" paper as such. The other items on the front page are about flooding in the southern U.S., and "April shows highest jobs growth in almost a year".

Page 3 of the pdf (marked as page 7 - obviously this is only an extract of the full paper) is editorials ("What we say"), a couple letters to the editor ("What you say"), and "What others say" - in this case, an op-ed from the Washington Post about what the future holds with Osama Bin Laden out of the way.

The second letter to the editor is lovely. The writer says how much he enjoys reading Di Tzeitung, but just one thing drives him around the bend: How can good the good Hasidic Jewish editorial board side so blatantly with left-wing Democrats and Obama? Doesn't it go against "our" ideals? It makes the blood rush to my head!! [My paraphrased partial translation.]

I love it.

ETA: And I love the opportunity to read some Yiddish - thanks, all!

milo204

it's not people who believe things that are different than me--i can disagree with them without resorting to ridicule. but there is no rational argument that can be made to defend editing a woman out of a picture simply for being a woman.

There's plenty of non ridiculous things they could have done--like print the article without the picture, use a different picture...but to do what they did for the reasons they did it is just so outside the bounds of any rational thinking being that i have to think they are actually insane.  Not as an insult, but in the actual medical sense.

as for wacko, you're right that probably is a derogatory term for mental illness, i'm gonna look it up.

 

milo204

a few entries of "wacko" in online dictionaries peg it as a word for someone who is "eccentric" 

wacko [ˈwækəʊ] Informal
adj
mad or eccentric

n pl wackos
a mad or eccentric person

wack·o 

 (wk) also whack·o (hwk, wk)
n. pl. wack·os also whack·os Slang
A person regarded as eccentric or irrational: "a catchy pop portrait of a wacko who talks to himself in French" (Phoebe Hoban).

adj.
Wacky.The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

It's offensive milo, thanks for your understanding.

Hellebor

 It's certainly a great way to deny women their places in history & society, no matter how it was meant or what the paper's sentiments are.

 Can women be quoted in print, if not accompanied by a photo, or is that banned in this paper too??

Hellebor

milo204 wrote:

one more reason why i can't stand religious wacko's....

airbrushing women out of pictures? c'mon, seriously?  if that isn't proof of insanity i'm not sure what is.  i'm sure they'd like to airbrush women out of everything except making babies!

 

******

 If the "Wack-O" fits, wear it. I agree with your original statement.

 Funny how the more Right wing, Conservative branches of religions try to demonize conservative Muslims, the more they seem to share the same questionable values.

 I'm done taking their excuses as religious doctrine.

 It's just Not Fair or even journalistically Accurate in any sense of the word.