Firestorm After ‘Der Zeitung’ Deletes Hillary Clinton from Iconic Photo

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Firestorm After ‘Der Zeitung’ Deletes Hillary Clinton from Iconic Photo

Viewing 50 posts - 101 through 150 (of 280 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1052687

    m in Israel
    Member

    Charlie:

    “The newspaper has every right to maintain their religious values”

    Knowingly publishing deliberately doctored photographs is a religious value?

    Did you read the rest of my post? I was addressing your assertion that they have a responsibility to print the original picture. Their religious values prevent the printing of women in their paper. You may disagree with this concept, but they have a right to it. To print the doctored picture was in my opinion wrong — as I stated in my original post, they should not have printed it at all if it did not meet their criterion. However the fact that they made a mistake and published it does not require them to now print the original picture, as you propose as the “only” way for them to show true regret.

    #1052688

    commonsense
    Participant

    mseeker, i’m responding to your question of why should we care, we need to care because we live among literally billions of non jews whom we ask to respect our religious differences and often to make accommodations for us when necessary. if they think us different but normal then they can respect us. it they think us radicals then any religious difference becomes radical. I personally have no problem with newspapers not printing pictures of women, often i think it funny but if you think it more tznius go right ahead. a newspaper that is a public forum has to be careful not to tread on outsider’s toes because until moshiach comes we need to be able to live among non jews peacefully. better to not print pictures obtained from non jewish sources if they need altering then to chance this hulabaloo.

    #1052689

    deiyezooger
    Member

    “deiyezooger

    that’s a horse of another color. Only the gullible would believe the picture of Palin with the ak47 to be accurate and serious, however, the pic of the situation room did not seem/have intention to be like a joke/satirical in any way.”

    Oh! so its ok to alter a picture without permision ofthe copyright holder for a joke e.i. to poke fun (in a very demeaning way) of a woman running for VP on a major party line, but if you deleate someone from a picture for modesty reasons then dont even botter apoligizing….

    (BTW, I agree it was wrong to deleate clinton from the picture, so does the editor of “Di Tzeitung”).

    #1052690

    yid.period
    Member

    deiyezooger

    really, where do you get this stuff from. Was there a copyright on the original photo? (find a source or evidence to support your claim)

    Also, making fun of an individual is NOT by any stretch of the imagination the same as implying that 51% of the world’s population are second class citizens/not entitled to equal rights.

    DY

    fair enough, so the Washington post retracts that copyrights were infringed upon, doesn’t mean that it was legal to manipulate (see our earlier discussion relating to other sensitive materials of the whitehouse ie. classified documents, and our inability to make conclusions)

    #1052691

    msseeker
    Member

    commonsense, where did I ask why we should care?

    #1052692

    Pac-Man
    Member

    y.p: What’s so difficult to grasp? There is an explicit law passed by Congress that states that work, including photographs, of the U.S. Government are free to be manipulated and published by anyone. It’s as simple as that. Classified material has nothing to do with this discussion; the photo was taken and distributed by the White House. The WH does not, and by law cannot, distribute classified material.

    #1052693

    yid.period
    Member

    saying it’s a clear distinction does not make it one. My point is that it’s not so pashut… the fact that the whitehouse attached limitations most likely means that there are limitations; maybe. I was responding to your decisive claim that there is no cause for any of this backlash. It’s simply not so simple.

    #1052694

    y.p,

    I think it’s quite reasonable to assume that the Washington Post would not have retracted had they not realized that they were definitely wrong.

    #1052695

    BSD
    Member

    Yid Period.-“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.”

    True-people believe what they choose to believe. Modesty is not a convenient or fun way to live life. So rather vilify it than learn from it. Also their subsequent press release was well written and respectful. It should be an eye opener to make people realize that the omission was done not because we don’t respect women, but because we value modesty.

    Bored in office-“@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.”-

    Excuse me, tznius is not limited to shul just as eating kosher is not limited to your house. People have a legitimate need for kosher media.

    Regarding the contract/copyright etc. It’s never ok to break the law or renege on a contract, but that has no bearing on the woman’s lib issue. And they issued an apology.

    #1052696

    a mamin
    Participant

    MODS: I think you should close this thread! Enough publicity already. Everyone made their point.

    #1052697

    Health
    Participant

    Bored in office -“How can you say that a newspaper being sold at newstands does nto have other readers. It is being sold to anyone who wants it. Does the newsman only sell it to chasidim??”

    I got news for you. This is a Yiddish written paper. Anybody who buys it, whether through subscription or newsstands, reads Yiddish. All the readers know the policy about not showing pictures of women!

    #1052698

    boredinoffice
    Participant

    @bsd – tznius is not limited but you cant take your agenda out public and expect no public response. Kosher media has to come with adhering to all rules/laws regarding media. Altering of photos or changing facts cannot be done without a disclaimer in advance not a meek aplogy later.

    @health – true – but again – the target market would be yiddish speaking folks. if it is being sold at a newsstand it is PUBLIC therby allowing anyone to view and comment.

    The apology that came after reminds me of when a judge tells a jury “strike this form the record” It is nice but meaningless. Whatever thoughts or points that needs to be removed are already ingrained in the mind of the juror

    #1052699

    Health
    Participant

    Bored – “if it is being sold at a newsstand it is PUBLIC therby allowing anyone to view and comment.”

    They have the right to comment, but it seems most of the negative comments are based on antisemitism.

    And the apology was because after the firestorm, they didn’t want to leave the false impression (about women denigration) on the main society and the gov., who asked that the photo shouldn’t be altered.

    It wasn’t an admission of guilt. They aren’t ever going to show pictures of women, but they might be more careful with gov. photos.

    This apology isn’t to change the mind of all the people who said Chassidim are like radical moslems and all the other negative comments. A person with bias will always have bias, no matter how mant times you show them the Truth!

    #1052700

    yid.period
    Member

    BSD

    I think you are missing my point. While I appreciate the value of modesty, I understand there are those who do not, and there those who just have a different definition of modesty than I do.

    Therefore, we cannot expect people to just not be offended when dealing with a sensitive issue such as women’s rights, because we felt we had a good reason to do as we did. Not everyone appreciates our reasoning.

    #1052701

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    You can buy copies of it on eBay

    #1052702

    boredinoffice
    Participant

    @health

    The basis is very clear. Doing something in a public forum with without explaining what is wrong will lead anyone to think that way. What would you tell the the guy walking along the edge of a bridge? I think it is safe to assume he is about to jump. If there was a sign that said construction ahead you would not think twice about it.

    If they would have noted that 2 women were removed from the picture then all would be well. By them not acknowledgeing that they were in the room they are showing the world how narrow minded they are and how all that concerns them is is their own agenda.

    Simply put, If one thinks in advance of their actions they will have less problems

    #1052703

    SJSinNYC
    Member

    So I guess I’m an anti-semite right? (insert eye roll emoticon)

    #1052704

    aries2756
    Participant

    I believe they were absolutely without a doubt wrong to do what they did. If they don’t want to show a picture with women, they should have chosen another photo or cropped the photo to cut her out along with other members. To erase her but no one else was a total insult and wrong. It is impolite and insulting to the country and to the photographer. However cropping the photo and not publishing the entire photo is a more acceptable form of using the photo.

    #1052705

    oomis
    Participant

    Cropping the photo without saying it was edited, would also have been a lie. History was being made, and the paper basically re-wrote it by erasing a key player, unnecessarily.

    #1052706

    aries2756
    Participant

    Oomis, cropping a photo because of space is not as bad as showing the whole photo except for one member of the group that was erased. If you crop a photo and not everyone can fit it, it is not singling out one particular member of the group. Other photos in other publications show a larger group but it will NOT show that someone in particular was omitted.

    Hillary was NOT a key player in the decision to kill Osama. That was Obama’s decision. Yes she was sitting on the event, but the newspaper has the right to print whichever part of the photo they wish to print.

    #1052707

    Health
    Participant

    Bored – “By them not acknowledgeing that they were in the room they are showing the world how narrow minded they are and how all that concerns them is is their own agenda.”

    My problem isn’t that people came to this conclusion -it’s understandable. I think they realized this also -hence the apology. My problem (if you read my previous posts) is that they think that if someone doesn’t do the correct thing always, they have the right to spew all kinds of hatred at them. If you read some of the comments on the net, the mildest was just comparing Chassidim to the Taliban/Radical Muslims. Some openly called for violence. It doesn’t really sound that these people believe in the Constituion about free speech. They believe in free speech as long as the speech is PC! For Frum people to publically denouce this newspaper (even if they are wrong, which I doubt because all they did was cause a misconception of how they perceive women) will only add fuel to their fire of Hatred & Antisemitism!

    #1052708

    To all those who feel that the paper was guilty of lying and dishonesty, I ask; do you really think anyone fell for it, and thinks there are no women in powerful positions today?

    #1052709

    msseeker
    Member

    Thanks for a “Health”y dose of common sense. (Not so common here!)

    #1052710

    yid.period
    Member

    health

    if they caused a misconception of how they perceive women, doesn’t that make them wrong?

    The issue isn’t that it violated the first amendment, it’s how we made ourselves be perceived to the general public in an unflattering light.

    dy

    it’s not that people would think that there are no powerful women; it’s that they think that we are suppressing that fact, as a reflection of our views on women.

    #1052711

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    To all those who feel that the paper was guilty of lying and dishonesty, I ask; do you really think anyone fell for it, and thinks there are no women in powerful positions today?

    That’s not the lie in question. The issue is that they lied about the fact that Hillary Clinton and Audrey Tomason were there — and before all the hype about the action, yes, I believe people viewing the photo would have believed that they weren’t in the room.

    The Wolf

    #1052712

    apushatayid
    Participant

    Whatever the motivation for not showing pictures of women, even black and white photos of a partially obscured faces, the publications should just use seichelin what they do and how they do it. How did the “non heimishe” world find out about “der tzeitung”, did some disgruntled housewife from monroe call them to complain about it?

    #1052713

    oomis
    Participant

    Hillary is Secretary of the United States, and cropping her out for ANY reason is disrespecting that role. Whether we like her or not is not the issue. She is in the position that she is in, and out of respect for her authority, should not have been omitted out of some misguided sense of tznius in this case. JMO

    #1052714

    a mamin
    Participant

    This is getting worse and worse!!! Don’t you have anything else to talk about??????

    #1052715

    Pac-Man
    Member

    A known former Orthodox, now a frei Jew hater, saw it and gave it to the Jerusalem Post, who published it and from there the mainstream media picked it up.

    #1052716

    dy

    it’s not that people would think that there are no powerful women; it’s that they think that we are suppressing that fact, as a reflection of our views on women.

    You’re right, in a sense (that it allowed people to claim that these are our views of women, although that claim was made out of ignorance) but I was addressing those who feel the paper acted dishonestly. As far as those who feel that the paper acted stupidly, I am in agreement, as I’ve mentioned.

    The issue is that they lied about the fact that Hillary Clinton and Audrey Tomason were there

    I disagree. Omission of a fact is not a lie (unless a strong inference could be made, which is doubtful in this case).

    You say that “people viewing the photo would have believed that they weren’t in the room”, which is not true; they merely might not have known that they were not in the room, which is completely different. Besides, their normal readership knows that all pictures of women are removed.

    #1052717

    boredinoffice
    Participant

    @health – we are discussing normal rational people not the radicals. Raidcals on either end will never be satisfied with anything except there own way.

    @oomis – you could not have summed it up better. As an aside, if Hillary can come to boro park/monroe/williamsburg to meet with various rebbes then she can most definantaly be published in print

    #1052718

    She is in the position that she is in, and out of respect for her authority, should not have been omitted out of some misguided sense of tznius in this case. JMO

    Why should that newspaper follow your guidelines for tznius? It makes a whole lot more sense for them to follow their own guidelines, and that of their readership.

    #1052719

    This is getting worse and worse!!! Don’t you have anything else to talk about??????

    Nice weather we’re having today!

    #1052720

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    You say that “people viewing the photo would have believed that they weren’t in the room”, which is not true; they merely might not have known that they were not in the room, which is completely different.

    Do you realize we’re heading into “it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is” territory? C’mon, you’re splitting that hair so thin that there’s barely anything there.

    The bottom line is this: if you were to ask an average person, upon seeing the doctored photo, if Hillary Clinton was there, sitting next to whoever it was she was sitting next to, most people would say no — and that includes the readers of this paper. They would not say “Oh, that must have been Hillary’s spot, but she was taken out.”

    The Wolf

    #1052721

    msseeker
    Member

    ???? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ????. ?”? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ???????? ???????. ??????? ???? ????????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ? ???? ??? ??? ?????????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????. ??? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ?????.

    ?????? ???????? ??? ????.

    #1052722

    aries2756
    Participant

    oomis, don’t get me wrong, I agree with you. But if they have to uphold their own rules they should find a way to do it that is NOT so negative and offensive. This is NOT the first time that they erased her from a very important photo.

    #1052723

    C’mon, you’re splitting that hair so thin that there’s barely anything there.

    I don’t think it’s as fine a distinction as you claim, and I again assert that seeing that picture would not make anyone specifically think that she wasn’t there. It wasn’t a senate session or UN meeting with a senator or delegate’s name plate in front of an empty chair.

    Besides, I learn a lot of gemara with meforshim, so I’m allowed to split hairs! πŸ™‚

    #1052724

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    ???? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ????. ?”? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ???????? ???????. ??????? ???? ????????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ? ???? ??? ??? ?????????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????. ??? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ?????.

    ?????? ???????? ??? ????.

    Please translate. Not all of us speak Yiddish.

    The Wolf

    #1052725

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    and I again assert that seeing that picture would not make anyone specifically think that she wasn’t there.

    It would definitely make something think she wasn’t sitting in that chair, no?

    The Wolf

    #1052726

    would definitely make something think

    you mean as opposed to a human being?

    #1052727

    Wolf,

    I think the gist of what msseeker is saying is that by now, most non-Jews who are not anti-Semitic have accepted that although the paper made a mistake, they’ve apologized, and are ready to move on, so why can’t we Jews also believe that no harm was intended, accept their acknowledgement of poor judgement, and move on.

    #1052728

    It would definitely make something think she wasn’t sitting in that chair, no?

    Now *that* is hairsplitting!

    would definitely make something think

    you mean as opposed to a human being?

    And so is that!

    πŸ™‚

    #1052729

    apushatayid
    Participant

    Let me get this straight, it is forbidden to publish a black and white partially obscured facial photo of Hillary Clinton in the paper, because it is not tznius. When she shows up in the neighborhood to “bring home the pork”, does she wear a burqua? Do only women attend the meetings with her? Seems to me there is a double standard at play, but hey, what do I know, i’m just apushatayid.

    #1052730

    yid.period
    Member

    I’m done with this

    #1052731

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    you mean as opposed to a human being?

    My apologies. I did not mean to imply that anyone here is less than a human being. It was simply a typo.

    The Wolf

    #1052732

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    Can anyone name ONE POSEK who agreed with the newspaper decsion.

    I know Rav Mordechai Willig did NOT agree with the newspaper and felt it was a perversion of Halacha what they did

    #1052733

    a mamin
    Participant

    Daas Yochid: It’s supposed to rain over Shabbos……

    #1052734

    Pac-Man
    Member

    z’sdad: They have a rav who decides what goes in. Google di tzeitung and you will find their number if you want his name. R. Willig is a modern rabbi and has standards far different than Chareidim.

    #1052735

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    so why can’t we Jews also believe that no harm was intended, accept their acknowledgement of poor judgement, and move on.

    Because even though the paper apologized, there are still people here on this very forum saying that the paper was absolutely correct in doing what they did and that removing Mrs. Clinton was the absolute right thing to do.

    As soon as the people here are willing to admit that the paper made a mistake and that it would have been more honest to either not publish the photo (or publish it with a notification that it was altered), then I’d be willing to let the matter rest and “move on.”

    The Wolf

    #1052736

    apushatayid
    Participant

    The women who keep appearing in the Ohel Mental Health Professionals video advertisement must surely be a breach of tznius, where are YWNs standards? Der Tzeitung wouldn’t even go with a black and white photo, and YWN is in color. My goodness.

Viewing 50 posts - 101 through 150 (of 280 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending