May 9, 2011 6:56 pm at 6:56 pm #596787
Must be a quiet news day today. Otherwise why the fuss? If its a newspaper’s policy not to show women’s photos, why would they go against their policy now?May 9, 2011 7:56 pm at 7:56 pm #1052579
I agree. It’s not as if they chose this specific picture.May 9, 2011 7:58 pm at 7:58 pm #1052580
True, however it is at least expected to make note that the photo was doctored and there were the two women there.May 9, 2011 7:59 pm at 7:59 pm #1052581
i think they are making a bigger deal about this than they should be. Is a newspaper not allowed to have standards? and how did the media find out about this all together?May 9, 2011 8:01 pm at 8:01 pm #1052582
They were not allowed to alter the picture. It was the rules of using the photos
It was a huge Chilul HashemMay 9, 2011 8:04 pm at 8:04 pm #1052583
thank you modsMay 9, 2011 8:07 pm at 8:07 pm #1052584
This is what i got from someone:
Der Tzeitung released the following statement today in response to the furor that has erupted regarding the altered photo:
We respect all government officials. We even have special prayers for the welfare of our Government and the government leaders, and there is no mention of gender in such prayers.
All Government employees are sworn into office, promising adherence to the Constitution, and our Constitution attests to our greatness as a nation that is a light beacon to the entire world. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. That has precedence even to our cherished freedom of the press! In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status. Publishing a newspaper is a big responsibility, and our policies are guided by a Rabbinical Board. Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging to women, which is certainly never our intention. We apologize if this was seen as offensive.May 9, 2011 8:09 pm at 8:09 pm #1052585
Hindsight is 20/20. I’m sure that if they had any idea of the storm it would create they would have skipped the photo altogether, but who would have thought? And truthfully, why the uproar? I haven’t read the blogs you refer to but what is their main argument?What’s the crime? The paper is making an honest attempt to be true to journalism, which at times includes photos. Since the paper has restrictions due to our commendable standards of tznius they omitted some of the picture-Today’s society with all it’s immorality should try to emulate-not vilify, our beautiful way of life.May 9, 2011 8:11 pm at 8:11 pm #1052586
zahavasdad, I agree, but it might have been a mistake, especially since their English isn’t the greatest. We should be ?? ??? ???? frum Jews too, not only reshaim.
“how did the media find out about this all together?”
?????? ???????? ??? ????. They got it from a moser in JPost who probably reads ?? ??????? every week in order to find shmutz on frum Jews.May 9, 2011 8:22 pm at 8:22 pm #1052587
One needs to be careful what one posts or does.
ESPECIALLY in Todays internet society. Stuff can go viral very quickly.
If they are unsure , hire someone who knows. Learn proper etiquette. Learn proper english.
They didnt get it from the Jpost, they got it from a different well known bloggerMay 9, 2011 8:24 pm at 8:24 pm #1052588
We should be ?? ??? ???? frum Jews too, not only reshaim.
I can give them that in respect that they perhaps they did not know the terms of the photo. I cannot give them that in the fact that they purport themselves to be a newspaper (with the journalistic standards that that implies) and that they believe it’s perfectly all right to alter news photos.
If you don’t want to print a photo, then fine, don’t print it. But to alter it and present it as an “as it happened” moment is lying — pure and simple. They *do* know better than that.
The WolfMay 9, 2011 8:24 pm at 8:24 pm #1052589
BSD — “The paper is making an honest attempt to be true to journalism,”
That means that if they publish a picture, it should be a real, unedited picture, unless otherwise noted. That’s called accuracy.
Not everyone agrees that everything the “ultra orthodox” do is 100% kosher, pardon the pun. Not everyone considers religion at all, let alone those practices that go against cultural values, a “beautiful way of life.”May 9, 2011 8:28 pm at 8:28 pm #1052590
U.S. Government photos, such as the one in question (i.e non-classified), are by law in the public domain. Thus anyone can legally alter it however they wish, notwithstanding the disclaimer the White House attached which has no legal application.May 9, 2011 8:28 pm at 8:28 pm #1052591
Some guy made an issue out of a tissue! The whole thing is stupid. To me it looks like all the newspapers ran out of news & were happy to some non-sense topic. It was all overMay 9, 2011 8:41 pm at 8:41 pm #1052592
They should have just found a different picture and not printed that one at all.May 9, 2011 8:47 pm at 8:47 pm #1052593May 9, 2011 9:14 pm at 9:14 pm #1052594
“If you don’t want to print a photo, then fine, don’t print it. But to alter it and present it as an “as it happened” moment is lying — pure and simple. They *do* know better than that.”
Who cares? All their readers know that women are cut out from photos and appreciate it. This is one of the reasons why we buy frum newspapers.May 9, 2011 9:15 pm at 9:15 pm #1052595
“To me it looks like all the newspapers ran out of news & were happy to some non-sense topic.”
Well, To me it looks like all the newspapers were happy to some frum-bashing topic.May 9, 2011 9:20 pm at 9:20 pm #1052596
“They didnt get it from the Jpost, they got it from a different well known blogger”
Wrong. From the new YW article:
“As published by YWN earlier today, the articles spread from the Jerusalem Post to the NY Post, to a being a lead story on Fox News, TIME, Washington Post, Yahoo News, NY Daily News, CNN, Huffington Post and dozens and dozens of other news outlets.”May 9, 2011 9:32 pm at 9:32 pm #1052597
This is totally ridiculous!! A privately owned paper can choose to do what they wish!!! They have their guidelines and they follow them! This paper is NOT politically inclined in any way and all you MISNAGDIM out there can choose to buy whatever paper you want!!May 9, 2011 9:34 pm at 9:34 pm #1052598
A privately owned paper can choose to do what they wish!!!
not if they are accept a photo taken by someone else and sign a contract agreeing to not alter the photographMay 9, 2011 9:35 pm at 9:35 pm #1052599
From the NY daily news story, it seems it began with a blogger known as F
May 9, 2011 9:36 pm at 9:36 pm #1052600
They say they didn’t see that small print.They apologized anyway so why all this ????????May 9, 2011 9:37 pm at 9:37 pm #1052601
The photo was taken by the government and the gov’t by law can’t hold any copyrights and anyone is allowed under the law to alter it and publish it. The disclaimer on the photo has no legal effect.May 9, 2011 9:44 pm at 9:44 pm #1052602
Papers CANNOT do as they wish. They are subject to copywright laws as well using the common sense that some people are infused with. They may be privatly held but their content is not private at all.
They would have been better off publishing no picture at all.
@bsd the beautiful way of life that you speak of is very nice but that can be done in a shul publication, not in a public forum. The editors need to use their heads. its a big world out there and if you are not signing up to join it then dont be part of it. Dont take the pieces that fit the your viewpoints and throw all else away. They could have noted that teh photo was altered……May 9, 2011 9:45 pm at 9:45 pm #1052603
“They were not allowed to alter the picture. It was the rules of using the photos
It was a huge Chilul Hashem”
How’s this a Chillul H-shem? They said they didn’t see the fine print & that they had removed it because of their religious views of modesty.
Where is there any Chillul H-shem in being truthful & modest?May 9, 2011 9:52 pm at 9:52 pm #1052604
If a newspaper is not aware of copywright laws etc.. they should not be in business.May 9, 2011 10:00 pm at 10:00 pm #1052605
Again, this is a government photo, not a private one or news agency (i.e. Associated Press), that the public holds full rights to without any copyright. Anyone by law may alter it. The disclaimer attached to the photo has no legal effect.May 9, 2011 10:02 pm at 10:02 pm #1052606
The chillul Hashem is that American law does not accept ignorance as an excuse. They should have known better that the exclusion of the two women would be taken the wrong way. They had a responsibility as representatives of Jewish journalism to uphold a high standard, which they did not. They should have chosen a different picture. There is so much negative ignorant internet chatter about this talking about how Judaism is a woman hating religion. They should have been more careful.May 9, 2011 11:00 pm at 11:00 pm #1052607
They did the right thing since its assur becuz of tznius to have pictures of women anyway.May 9, 2011 11:01 pm at 11:01 pm #1052608
a mamin, i can’t believe you have internet access! while their mistake was unintentional they print a newspaper that is accessible to anyone who wants to purchase it. they made yidden look like backward radicals. this story is the cover story on aol and acc. to others on yahoo. there are literally millions on non frum jews and gentiles reading this story to whom the concept of tznius to this extent is foreign and they think we are flat out crazy! read the comments! I agree that we can do whatever we want as long as we keep it among ourselves. the rest of the world does not understand so don’t put it in front of them. I know the newspaper had no intention of causing this outcry but unfortunately it has occurred. there are many who are comparing us to radical muslims, not exactly the image we care to cultivate.May 9, 2011 11:36 pm at 11:36 pm #1052609
“there are many who are comparing us to radical muslims, not exactly the image we care to cultivate.”
Except they cut off women’s heads literally.May 9, 2011 11:42 pm at 11:42 pm #1052610
The JPOST article itself says they got it from a blogger, go read it.
Apparently, considering the amount of news sources reporting the incident and the newspaper’s own apology to the Whitehouse, there WAS something wrong with it. I’m not sure where you looked to think otherwise.May 10, 2011 12:09 am at 12:09 am #1052611
when did a significant number of muslims decapitate women?May 10, 2011 12:09 am at 12:09 am #1052612
“they made yidden look like backward radicals.”
And in the yidden’s eyes, the goyim that deny Torah look just as backwards. It goes both ways. What’s your point?
“there are literally millions on non frum jews and gentiles reading this story to whom the concept of tznius to this extent is foreign and they think we are flat out crazy! read the comments!”
Again, what’s your point? It’s not the Torah-observant Jews fault that the non frum jews & goyim have no concept of modesty.
“I know the newspaper had no intention of causing this outcry but unfortunately it has occurred. there are many who are comparing us to radical muslims, not exactly the image we care to cultivate.”
Jews are being compared to “radical muslims”? Radical muslims drive planes into buildings, shoot missiles at school buses, blow up houses of worship & beat/shoot/behead woman. How is it the Jews fault that the world wants to blind itself from the fact that Jews have NOT done anything like this?May 10, 2011 12:10 am at 12:10 am #1052613
Had it been any other newspaper making a mistake it would never been an ishue, maybe a little correction on page 46, but since its a frum jewish paper they are looking for blood.May 10, 2011 12:17 am at 12:17 am #1052614
And does jews who jump on the wagon bashing that chasidish newspaper, please be awear that they hate YOU just as much and they cant wait for the chance to jump un you too.May 10, 2011 1:22 am at 1:22 am #1052616
yid.period: The law is straightforward. From USA.Gov:
Copyright and Other Rights Pertaining to U.S. Government Works
A United States government work is prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person’s official duties.
It is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws:
-> reproduce the work in print or digital form;
-> create derivative works;
-> perform the work publicly;
-> display the work;
-> distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.May 10, 2011 1:34 am at 1:34 am #1052617
and if the president of the united states was a woman….then what?May 10, 2011 3:14 am at 3:14 am #1052618
That’s all very nice
but usually a newspaper that presents itself as such prints things (pictures, articles etc) as they actually were/are…
The paper was misleading, and didn’t even acknowledge it in the original print, thereby misrepresenting the actual situation in the “situation room”
Editing out women, especially in this society, is something that ought to be done with tact, so things like this don’t happen. It can easily be taken as a slight against Clinton and the other woman who was there, as well as women in general.
That’s a pretty big deal.May 10, 2011 3:34 am at 3:34 am #1052619
The caption was in Yiddish, and all who could read Yiddish understand that women are censored out and are happy about it. *I* might be slighted if my husband was exposed to pics of women.May 10, 2011 3:41 am at 3:41 am #1052620
It’s scary the reaction that the world has when it comes to anything religious esp. the frum Jewish religion. I wasn’t there in that time, but all the anti-semitism that this has provoked reminds me of pre-war Europe. I saw thousands of anti-semitic comments all over the net. Even if the newspaper committed a crime (which they didn’t), its’ still shocking the reaction. We live in such a liberal society were you can abort fetuses, men and women can Marry their own gender. Anything goes, but what is the world up in arms about -something they perceive as a denigration of women. (Btw, I read newspapers with women pictures in it, but I respect that way of thought, even if I personally don’t do it.)
They are pitiful hypocrites. Not only Don’t babies in their mother’s stomach have any rights, but a lot of Goyishe companies
won’t give Jobs to people who are Shomer Shabbos, “claiming”
“Undue Hardship”. This happenned to me over and over. This world will end and Yetamu Chatoyim Min Haaretz and Reshayim Od Ainum! This includes all the assimilated Jews who find nothing better to do than to put down Jews who don’t look at women!May 10, 2011 4:41 am at 4:41 am #1052621
so you advocate burkas for jewish women as well? … You can’t allow your husband or any man to be exposed to the face of a woman… ?May 10, 2011 9:09 am at 9:09 am #1052622
Why is the media making such a fuss about this? The Islamic radicals do the same thing all the time.May 10, 2011 12:53 pm at 12:53 pm #1052623
Apparently, considering the amount of news sources reporting the incident and the newspaper’s own apology to the Whitehouse, there WAS something wrong with it. I’m not sure where you looked to think otherwise.
You’re confusing cause and effect. The newspaper didn’t apologize because there was something wrong, it apologized because the story was reported negatively in so many news sources.
The newspaper did actually do something wrong; they didn’t anticipate the reaction.May 10, 2011 1:22 pm at 1:22 pm #1052626
I’m not a copyright lawyer, but I feel safe assuming the issue was two pronged.
1) What Pac-Man so kindly cut and pasted for us addresses COPYRIGHTS for U.S. Government works, such as bills and the like. This photo, as the terms of distribution stipulated, “may not be manipulated in any way”, would most likely relate closely to the category of “classified” documents, in that there are special circumstances and guidelines that must be adhered too. I doubt pac-man would claim “classified” documents are also subject to freedom of distribution and manipulation.
2) As I pointed out above and DY so kindly reiterated, when operating in a secular society, one must be mindful of the messages our actions send to the general public and what their reactions will be. Otherwise, we run the risk of having a chillul Hashem occur C”V.
Side note which is a different issue but relates here, Rav Nebenzhal of the Old City of Jerusalem holds that on an airplane one should daven in his seat instead of standing in the back of the isle as part of a minyan, since it disturbs the flight attendants and the passengers around them who may not share their enthusiasm.May 10, 2011 1:30 pm at 1:30 pm #1052627
I would imagine (although I’m not a copyright lawyer either) that “classified” refers to “secret” documents. This photo surely doesn’t fit into that category.
As far as airplane minyanim, that’s always been a concern of mine, although I’ve never heard of a specific rov who addressed it.
Maybe a more frequent flyer than I can answer this question, though: can a minyan be arranged on an airplane with the cooperation of airline personnel so that it doesn’t disrupt other passengers?May 10, 2011 1:37 pm at 1:37 pm #1052628
This is getting out of hand. If Hillary Clinton were President of the USA, would they STILL delete her pictures from news stories?May 10, 2011 1:42 pm at 1:42 pm #1052629
“Why is the media making such a fuss about this? The Islamic radicals do the same thing all the time. “
And so you want frum Jews to be compared to THEM??????May 10, 2011 1:51 pm at 1:51 pm #1052630
Conan O’brien did a bit about this story on his show last Night saying Bill Clinton says no picture of Hillary is going to elicit any kind of inappropriate response
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.