Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Stuff Photography Industry News 
Thread started 10 May 2011 (Tuesday) 10:49
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Newspaper takes people out of a picture

 
this thread is locked
sigma ­ pi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,204 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Los Angeles
     
May 10, 2011 10:49 |  #1

http://www.ktla.com …newspaper,0,135​7193.story (external link)

NEW YORK -- An ultra-Orthodox Jewish publication is apologizing after it ran a doctored copy of the iconic "Situation Room Photo" last Friday -- the one taken of President Barack Obama and his national security team during the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound.

Scrubbed from the picture: the two women in the room.

It's as if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with her hand clasped over her mouth, and Audrey Tomason, director of counterterrorism, weren't there and weren't part of history.

The Di Tzeitung, a Hasidic newspaper, later apologized for violating White House instructions against altering photos.

"We should not have published the altered picture, and we have conveyed our regrets and apologies to the White House and to the State Department," the newspaper said in a statement Monday.

The news of this broke Friday when Shmarya Rosenberg, 52, posted a quick piece on his blog Failed Messiah.

Sign up for KTLA 5 Breaking News Email Alerts

Rosenberg, of St. Paul, Minnesota, said he wasn't surprised by the photo doctoring and only posted something about it because "it was a slow news day."

A former ultra-Orthodox Jew, Rosenberg has been writing about the ultra-Orthodox community - mostly about crime and what he dubbed "strange media" - for seven years.

He said the newspapers in that community have become "increasingly strange with their censorship of women's faces and women's bodies" over the past few years.

He said readers of the Yiddish-language paper used to see photos of rabbis with their wives and that there was then a time when the women were blurred. Now, they're just not there.

But in a written statement issued Monday afternoon by Di Tzeitung, the newspaper said that its decision to leave women out of photos is religiously mandated and that the right to do so is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

"The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. That has precedence even to our cherished freedom of the press," the statement said. "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 women, which is certainly never our intention," it continued. "We apologize if this was seen as offensive."

Within Judaism, there are a number of denominations - Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist and modern Orthodox, to name some - and ultra-Orthodox Judaism accounts for just one branch of the faith.

It's worth noting that the White House attached this disclaimer to the photo when it was released:

This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

"We're not going to comment" on this matter, a White House senior official told CNN.

The leadership at Di Tzietung, though, apologized for violating the disclaimer.

"Our photo editor realized the significance of this historic moment, and published the picture, but in his haste he did not read the 'fine print' that accompanied the picture, forbidding any changes," the newspaper said in its Monday statement.

Furthermore, Di Tzeitung noted the Orthodox community's respect for Clinton, who served as a senator in New York for eight years.

"She won overwhelming majorities in the Orthodox Jewish communities...because the religious community appreciated her unique capabilities and compassion to all communities," the statement said. "The allegations that religious Jews denigrate women or do not respect women in public office is a malicious slander and libel."


Don't try to confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up.
http://www.flickr.com …6850267535/in/p​hotostream (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AZGeorge
Goldmember
Avatar
2,668 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 761
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Southen Arizona
     
May 10, 2011 12:19 |  #2

This, for a responsible newspaper, is highly egregious action no matter what the source of the image. All such papers consider themselves the first draft of history. If, for example, there seems to be a telephone pole growing out of the head of a beloved mayor at a groundbreaking, the pole stays because, in fact, it was there. That the shooter could and should have found a better angle is not considered sufficient excuse for doctoring the record.


George
Democracy Dies in Darkness

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
May 10, 2011 12:45 |  #3

From the linked article:

"Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging women, which is certainly never our intention," it continued. "We apologize if this was seen as offensive." (emphasis mine)

I laughed out loud when I read this.


Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada (external link)
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scans (external link)

Digitizing film with a digital camera (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sigma ­ pi
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,204 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Los Angeles
     
May 10, 2011 17:50 |  #4

AZGeorge wrote in post #12383285 (external link)
This, for a responsible newspaper, is highly egregious action no matter what the source of the image. All such papers consider themselves the first draft of history. If, for example, there seems to be a telephone pole growing out of the head of a beloved mayor at a groundbreaking, the pole stays because, in fact, it was there. That the shooter could and should have found a better angle is not considered sufficient excuse for doctoring the record.

agreed


Don't try to confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up.
http://www.flickr.com …6850267535/in/p​hotostream (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
emelvee
Goldmember
Avatar
1,871 posts
Joined Apr 2009
Location: E-town, Canada
     
May 10, 2011 17:54 as a reply to  @ sigma pi's post |  #5

Boooo!!!!


Canon RP | Canon 6D | 70-200 f/2.8 I | 50mm f/1.4 | 16-35mm f/2.8 II | 580EX II x 2
Tumblr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,604 posts
Likes: 45
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
May 10, 2011 18:09 |  #6

I can respect different belief systems. But, if it is not considered acceptable to publish photos of women, then you just don't add a picture to the story.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
May 10, 2011 19:42 |  #7

tkbslc wrote in post #12385522 (external link)
I can respect different belief systems. But, if it is not considered acceptable to publish photos of women, then you just don't add a picture to the story.

Really? You can respect a belief system that pretends that 50% of the population simply doesn't exist???

Perhaps you mean that you respect people's right to hold different beliefs? That's not really the same thing.


Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada (external link)
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scans (external link)

Digitizing film with a digital camera (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,604 posts
Likes: 45
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
May 10, 2011 23:49 |  #8

I don't see how not publishing photos is pretending they do not exist. Some people do not want pictures of children published. Is that pretending they do not exist?

One might argue the western world has taken an equally extreme position by making sure most of our published pictures of women are properly "enhanced" to an acceptable level of beauty.

Basically I wasn't trying to take a position on either side, just saying that regardless of the reason, it was not acceptable to edit the photo.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

3,206 views & 0 likes for this thread, 5 members have posted to it.
Newspaper takes people out of a picture
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Stuff Photography Industry News 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is semonsters
1685 guests, 140 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.