Hasidic Newspaper Removes Clinton, Another Woman From Iconic Photo

Discussion in 'Ethics and Philosophy' started by ishutteratthethought, May 9, 2011.

  1. ishutteratthethought

    ishutteratthethought Subscriber

    Messages:
    774
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  2. chriscrawfordphoto

    chriscrawfordphoto Member

    Messages:
    1,191
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    Fort Wayne,
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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.
     
  3. jglass

    jglass Member

    Messages:
    396
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Location:
    Austin
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Oh boy, this should be good.
     
  4. erikg

    erikg Member

    Messages:
    1,455
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2003
    Location:
    pawtucket rh
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
     
  5. CGW

    CGW Member

    Messages:
    2,797
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Are you sure Hillary wasn't edited into the original photo? Just asking.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 9, 2011
  6. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    18,005
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
  7. ishutteratthethought

    ishutteratthethought Subscriber

    Messages:
    774
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    "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.
     
  8. CGW

    CGW Member

    Messages:
    2,797
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Tell me I'm wrong but you don't seem like a regular Der Tzitung reader.
     
  9. ishutteratthethought

    ishutteratthethought Subscriber

    Messages:
    774
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    ok...i confess....I am not:smile:
     
  10. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    17,194
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Delta, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
     
  11. Greg Davis

    Greg Davis Member

    Messages:
    2,055
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Nicholasvill
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    It seems to me the best compromise, other than not running the photo at all, would have been to "redact" the two women. What I mean is completely black them out as though silhouettes. They are then not pictured, but not removed, either. But I admit I am ignorant as to what is tolerable to Hassidic audiences.
     
  12. CGW

    CGW Member

    Messages:
    2,797
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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?
     
  13. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,143
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. Ottrdaemmerung

    Ottrdaemmerung Member

    Messages:
    258
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
     
  16. thegman

    thegman Member

    Messages:
    623
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2010
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Probably the best thing to do in the case of most religious idiocies is to roll your eyes and continue as normal.
     
  17. CGW

    CGW Member

    Messages:
    2,797
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Unbelievable. Any idea what the circulation of Der Tzitung is? Talk about typhoons in a teacup. Any clue why the photo was altered?
     
  18. 36cm2

    36cm2 Member

    Messages:
    594
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    Northeast U.
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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.
     
  19. ishutteratthethought

    ishutteratthethought Subscriber

    Messages:
    774
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
     
  20. erikg

    erikg Member

    Messages:
    1,455
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2003
    Location:
    pawtucket rh
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Doesn't matter. They had no right to do so.
     
  21. Alan W

    Alan W Subscriber

    Messages:
    460
    Joined:
    May 16, 2009
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    When I saw the title I thought someone had a photo of Bill minus Monica!
     
  22. Sirius Glass

    Sirius Glass Subscriber

    Messages:
    20,724
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110509/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden_doctored_photo

     
  23. CGW

    CGW Member

    Messages:
    2,797
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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.
     
  24. Vaughn

    Vaughn Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,374
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Location:
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    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
     
  25. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    18,005
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    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?
     
  26. billbretz

    billbretz Member

    Messages:
    243
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.