Newspaper Photoshops Hillary Clinton Out Of Situation Room Photo

•  Why do they publish any photo at all, surely they didn't exist when the Hasidic people got their messages from their very own 'g-d'?

• They photoshopped people out of an admittedly staged photograph? This is madness.

• If every single man was removed from that picture simply because they were men, then yes, that would be a problem.

• Isn't the paper Der Tzitung jihadist in the sense that it is attempting to maintain faith, improve its society, and defend its religion? 

•  so then they should be fined for copyright violation, not women rights violation, who knows if muslim women don't support the elimination of pictures (or parts) of women that are not using a burka?

• that  it's getting lucky

•  Absolutely, it is outrageous the way they don't let the nuns wear bikini

•  you and all the women rights zealots should be fined for incite obscenity and sexual exploitation

• The only thing more fun would have been if they put Bill Clinton in Hillary's place. If reality conflicts with your world view, bend reality!

• Anyone who who would be sexually aroused by Hilary Clinton needs more than censorship. More proof that religion is outdated nonsense. BTW, for those who are defending the Orthodox practice (it seems you must be Orthodox -- what are you doing reading this sinful, sexually enticing paper /web site?

• As a photographer, if anyone crops anything out of a photo i took without my permission, it is wrong period in infringing on a couple laws as well as morality, it doesnt matter if it was a man or woman, you take a person who was part of an event out of the picture it isnt the event anymore, the original was not taken to represent some one else's idea of what the event was. If someone photoshopped "in" someone who wasnt there can you say that picture acurately displays that exact point in time, again the photographer wanted to capture that event period, as it was, and not as how others thought it should be.

• What a bunch of stupid idiots!

• omg..these people are so woman phobic...maybe homosexual and dont wanna admit it...mmmm.

• If they had put a black bar over anything offensive to them, and the article made appropriate factual reference to who or what was in the photo, then we still might have cause to criticize the cultural underpinnings, but at least the journalism would be defensible. Photoshopping is lying. It isn't just ommission. It's creating false imagery to replace the ommission. That is straight-up lying.

• u fuckin pig head. Jews r the worst creatures this world has ever seen. And believe me this is freedom of speech not antisemitism.LOLZ

• when it is about Muslims, everyone makes hue and cry.when it comes to Jewish fanaticism, then it is labeled as ANTI SEMITIC. Double standards of the World. When u insult the Prophet of Muslims, it is called freedom of speech, but when u speak anything about holocaust, it is again antisemitism.

• Does making women naked is respecting the women or oppressing the women?

• This is typical of the right wing men, who want to act as though women don't do anything that matters. Only what men do is important, in the eyes of the right wingers, and they have really warped history with things like this throughout the years. It's extremely arrogant and cruel toward girls and women to do this.

• I think this is a half empty/half full discussion. Some muslims will say "she was to uncovered" and some non muslims will say "muslims women are too covered". The very old issue about whos to blame for male excitement

• More freedom for Jewish women. Israel, please step into 21st century. Your actions against women put you right next to Talibans who beat their women for walking next to them. After all, Hassodic Jew and Talibans are btothers (descendents of Abraham or Ibrahim). You are proving that all bearded morons are moral terrorists and they repress women to feel powerful about three and half inches of their floppy dicks.

• Hmm. I think I agree with you entirely here. When real journalists don't want to offend sensibilities, they blur out or pixilate the offending part of the image, they don't clone stamp it out.

• I agree. Islam, Christianity, and Judas Priests, I mean Jews all repress women. I want to see Catholic nuns in bikini.

• Does this mean the US will invade Israel now stating "there is an American inside every Jewish woman trying to come out" I really wanna see the US media criticizing Jews over violations. oh, wait ... Jews own the media.

• Their Photoshop guy must be whacking off like crazy.

• If it is not stated under the *altered* photo that select individuals were omitted from the photo due to being female, then this newspaper is painting a false and harmful picture to its readers. Because it is leading to the false pretense that women were not involved in this political event. This then further creates the illusion they believe in that women are not involved in important events, which would thus then further reinforce this groups point of view. But to their detriment it is not based on truth. Anytime a cultural practice strays from truth, it leads its participants further into an illusion.

• Leave it to the Jews to try and "create" news.

• You did not "omit" the female participants. If you had there would have been human shaped white spaces where they had been. What you did was "doctor" the photo in a way that deceives the reader. You did not erase ink. You erased history... you erased progress in a direction you dislike. Your excuse and apology are utter crap. You are afraid. Straight up cowards.

• What is your religion Goober?

• fucking jews, we should just burn them all

• If you post the photo with 2 blacked out individuals (there were 2 women removed.) Then you are following some kind of religious belief however asinine that belief may be. If you "Photoshop" the women out so it appears they were never there... You are totally busted for pulling some kind of "don't give the bitches any ideas" bullshit.

• Wow, this makes a whole lot of sense dude. Seriously. www.totally-anon.at.tc

• "The readership of the Tzeitung believe that women should be appreciated for who they are and what they do, not for what they look like" What she is is Secretary of State, and what she did was be a part of team in that room. They erased all of that so they didn't have to look at her -- i.e. "what she looks like" was the only thing they "appreciated". So I'm going to call bullshit on all of that, thanks.

• "Shovenistic". I laughed so hard.

• Mike, what you're missing is that Hillary was removed from the photo *because of her gender*. You're acting like they randomly cropped out Hillary because they didn't have enough room and she was on the edge of the photo, which is not the case at all. Really poor attempt, Mike. Think harder next time. Also, I would never call you "shovenistic" because that would make me look like a moron, you chauvinist.

• Radical actions (like altering photographs) prove radicality. Radical is as radical does. Of course they are radical. Just ask any Reform Jew or any Conservative Jew (which is 90% of Jews in the United States, BTW).

• Wherein Rosie Gray is vindicated and Ted Brown and his sockpuppets are proven full of crap: STATEMENT FROM NEWS REPORT (DI TZEITUNG)REGARDING THE WHITE HOUSE PICTURE The White House released a picture showing the President following "live" events of the apprehension of Osama Bin Laden, last week Sunday. Also present in the Situation Room were various high-ranking government and military officials including Secretary of State, the honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton and another female participant.Our photo editor realizing the significance of this historic moment, published the picture, but in his haste, did not read the "fine print" that accompanied the picture, forbidding any changes and published a picture omitting the female participants in the room.Because we wanted to honor the President and our armed forces for the historic significance of the moment, we opted to publish the photo, but without the women included, as is our long standing editorial policy.Our editorial policies are guided by a Rabbinical Board and because of laws of modesty, does not allow for the publishing of photos of women. The readership of the Tzeitung believe that women should be appreciated for who they are and what they do, not for what they look like, and the Jewish laws of modesty are an expression of respect for women, not the opposite.The allegations by some, that Orthodox Judaism denigrates women or do not respect women in public office,is a malicious slander and libel. The Jewish religion does not allow for discrimination based or gender, race, etc.The current Secretary of State, the Honorable Hillary R. Clinton, was for eight years, a Senator representing New York State with great distinction. She won overwhelming majorities in the Orthodox Jewish communities in her initial campaign in '00, and when she was re-elected in '06 it was because the religious community, among others, appreciated her unique capabilities, talents and compassion for all.We respect all government officials. We even have special prayers for the welfare of our Government and the government leaders. In retrospect, we apologize for any misunderstanding that this might have caused. 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.

• Offend? Did you ever have to ride on a hot, crowded subway next to one?

• For one, pretending that women do not exist is NOT a time-honored, ancient Jewish tradition. It is a relatively new phenomenon in the ever rightward-moving extremist movement that is today's Charedism. But whatever the case may be, religious belief, however sincere, does not exempt you from having to comply with the law. No one forced them to publish the photo, and if they cannot do so legally without violating their consciences, they should not publish the photo.

• Technically, anything the government releases is fair use. This means you have the right to (among other things) distribute, display, and derivate. The government might try to persuade the press by stating that disclaimer, but you can't actually enforce it.

• This is not "culturally sensative". This is stupidity.

• The real problem is that there are any "closed religious groups". Now, once more, I will try to explain the facts to all the pin heads (no offense to any real pin heads), there are not now nor have there ever been any god(s). If you'd all use your head for something other than a hat rack, perhaps we could improve life here and now for everyone. Rosie you're right and they, sadly enough are stupid.

• Clinton stopped being a woman the day the midwife slapped her ass. It's the same reason it drove it's husband to get his kicks from Monica. Get over it, bitches.

• Here writes the most hypocritical of all so-called journalists, and another without a passport. Take a look sometime at how Bucky Turco exploits women in his blogs and peddles his xenophobic BS. Bucky is simply a cunt. Always will be. Fuck off Bucky!

• Bravo, Mike!

• Ha at the description of this paper as an "ultra-Orthodox Hasidic newspaper," as if it only represents some radical branch of the Orthodox community.

• Incredible! Typical! Unfortunate! Ilegal! As stated above why did they even run the picture. It's time groups such as Hasidic Jews joined the 21'st century. I had an unfortunate encointer with 2 young Hasidic men in the Catskills. This incident only serves to show me that I was not wrong in my assessment of this group.

• To bad we can't crop Hill out of our lives that easily!

• Hassids are f*king lunatics should crawl back through the hole in their repressive sheet. or better yet drag their non jewish prostitues with them .. f*cking hypocrites each and every one.

• right on brother

• But they did not crop they massaged. And, hey, even cropping a photo is manipulating the image--much like mis-quoting someone. Get over it, this paper is living in a fantasy world. Don't try to defend medieval thinking.

• Obama bin laden just flung a booger at her and she was wiping it off. She asked the paper not to print that picture of her. Case closed

• living abroad does constitute a broad and accepting world view.

• Of course, I wonder if people would have as much of a problem with a picture being photoshopped if it was a man that was removed not a woman. It seems like this article is complaining more about the fact that it's "offensive and demeaning" only for the fact that a woman was pulled from the photo. If I had a fit about the disparate between every product in every store being "pink washed" for breast cancer awareness while prostate cancer awarness sits in some back corner somewhere, how many hate replies would I get about being shovenistic or about just hating women. You reported on a subject that obviously hit too close to home and you lost your journalistic integrity, it happens. Only thing to do now is admit it on move on.

• This sect of Jews considers it disrespectful of women to publish pictures with them in it. They were being respectful of the two women cropped out -- and anyone who would say otherwise is failing to be "culturally sensitive".

• Will you leave the Hassids alone! They don't offend anyone and live their lives by letting others live theirs. Please spend your time commenting on muslims and others.

• Stalin was the master of falsifying history in this manner. Of course the elimination of Hillary Clinton demeans women: it says that at this pivotal moment she didn't count. But what to do about these editors, made so queasy by the idea of men and women together? They could photoshop out everyone but Mrs. Clinton and print that photo beside the first: separate but equal.

• Very well said.

• There's no justifiable reason for eliminating Hillary Clinton from the picture. It is what it is. Anyone who can't deal with that is wrong. I think the religious zealots should be fined for what they did.

• It's all Bush's fault! Just ask Obama Bin Laden.

• "Americans like you are always looking for absolutes when there are none" oh the irony

• If it were a Muslim paper--and media in some Islamic countries do block out women from photos, or block out arms, legs and cleavage--we'd be screaming bloody murder. When are the haters in this country going to realize that Islam isn't the only religion that represses women?

• I'm with Ted! If you are inclined to point out the absurd ends to which people will follow religious beliefs, you must be a jihadi! Because that is what jihadis do. Also, this is clearly anti-Semitic, because it is critical of one practice of a small sect of Jews. QED. No one can critique Jews without hating everything about them. Science and religion have proven this.

• C'mon! Take another look at the photo. Clearly, there was no way an orthodox paper could publish a pic showing a blatant mid-post queef alert. Clinton was concerned/horrified her male peers would sniff the stench of old lady queef, whereas the hasid's were trying to save there audience the horrors of what was about to become in that room. Queef, plain and simple folks.

• Ted did have a point or two-and you did (do) come across as a bra-burner. Would it have been ok with you if the Hasidim paper simply cropped and published the left hand side of the picture in question? Would this really have been perverting the course of history?

• Here wrote a pedant.

• They've been 'shopping women out of photos for over 235 years? Incredible!

• Sure helps if you can read properly. Sounds as if truth hurts rosie gray. Why is a paper by and for a closed religious group and published in line with that group's beliefs and traditions degrading to women? Don't you really mean that because you are overreactive to "women" rights you saw it as degrading? It's a stretch to say it's degrading to women as in all women. & Where's your own evidence that the paper didn;t ask for permission? They have stated that they did. Should've gone farther than cancun or tijuana with that passport.

• As Ted said, predictable!

• You tell the writer there is no difference between she and jihadist and you expect your bizarre rant to be taken seriously? Laughable.

• Ted, you'll notice that nowhere in my post did I "cry my McCarthyist, crusade-like call to arms to burn down the publisher." Whatever that means. I understand the reason why Clinton was Photoshopped out of the image. That doesn't change the fact that a), it's still degrading to women, b) the paper violated the clearly stated terms of use for the photograph (do you have any actual evidence that the paper sought permission to alter the image in this way?), and c) taking Clinton out of the photo is not straight journalism. It is altering history and changing facts, and it isn't appropriate for a newspaper to do. If they couldn't publish the photo without altering it, they shouldn't have published it at all. Also, I have a passport and I've lived abroad for extended periods of time more than once. Nice try though.

• Rosie Gray. As you are writing for what is, ostensibly, a multi-cultural publication, could you not be a little more fastidious applying lateral thought as to why Clinton's image was removed? Especially as you propound that this was "rather offensive and demeaning"? It was not simply, as you put it, due to any sexual suggestive regard, but rather an application within a religious community publication to maintain the Haredi practice of modest dress and covered hair. Before you cry your McCarthyist, crusade-like call to arms to burn down the publisher, and all who would support them, the practice is much older by far than your country's 235 Years, the paper sought permission to alter the image, and omitting the image of Clinton is like omitting her name from the text, all fair game under your constitution. Americans like you are always looking for absolutes where there are none, and can be none, thus there really isn't too much difference between you and a jihadist. History has demonstrated to the cost of human life and progress that this is a dangerous trait to nurture. Perhaps you ought to consider getting a passport and traveling a bit, before trying journalism as a career. Incidentally, let's see how many predcitctable, like-minded, hatred-mongers you have attracted to your cause this week in the comments here..... It's why you (and your friends) write about life, instead of living it first. Sad.

TotalComments: 71