Hasidic Newspaper Apologizes for Editing Clinton Out of Situation Room Photo

Hasidic Newspaper Apologizes for Editing Clinton Out of Situation Room Photo

www.foxnews.com

The photo of the White House Situation Room was widely published after it was released by the Obama administration a week ago. Perhaps the most enduring image in that photo was that of Clinton with her hand over her mouth.

But the version of the photo that appeared in the Brooklyn newspaper Der Zeitung, an Orthodox Jewish publication, did not show Clinton, or Audrey Tomason, director for counterterrorism, who also was in the room.


Read more: www.foxnews.com...

(visit the link for the full news article)



Mod Edit: Review This Link: Instructions for the Breaking News Forums: Copy The Exact Headline

The manipulation of the media hence - the info that the public gets is just pitiful anymore. As is the people who make this possible. This isn't acceptable and I hope many people can see thru the smoke & mirror routine here.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Proper media lies and deciet why would they do that?? the whole thing is becoming a farce if not already

reply to post by TREASONFX


In my little humble opinion they claim many reasons. But I'm getting sick of this crap.

The original full scale color version looked shopped imo. Examine it carefully. Several of the people look as though they've simply been overlayed into the image,

Remember the oft-cited statement that if women ruled the world (instead of men) there would be no wars and killings? .....

Seriously though, I can't imagine a more lame and pointless exercise than to edit a photograph that's all over the internet and expect no one to take notice.... (except maybe the Amish.)

I suppose the editor of the paper could explain.... did he? Or is this simple straight forward misogynistic revisionist history for the Orthodox community?

reply to post by Humint1


i don't understand why this matters.
the mainstream mass media manipulates and distorts the Truth on a daily basis. why is it important that this tiny little brooklyn paper which nobody has ever heard of chopped the chicks out of the pic? Also, why is it important to include the "Jewish" prefix? when i first clicked, i assumed it would be about an Israeli paper. Wouldn't it make more sense to say "Brooklyn Newspaper Edits..."? at least that gives us some context.
again, if you could explain why this makes you so angry and you're "sick of it" when nearly every story reported on FOX, MSNBC and CNN has some sort of bias spun into it. if these editors at the "hasidic" paper didn't want the women in the photo, that's their choice. how does it affect us?

reply to post by RicoMarston

... how does it affect us?

It teaches us that news is not now, nor apparently ever will again be... news. It's what someone else wants you to believe... they way they want you to believe it.

It matters that we recognize and know that this happens in our 'enlightened' times.

I saw this story on CNN earlier. Here is the lame explanation for editing the image:

According to Rabbi Jason Miller, a blogger who picked up the story Sunday for The Jewish Week, Der Tzitung does not include images of women in print “because it could be considered sexually suggestive.”

religion.blogs.cnn.com...

Originally posted by RicoMarston
reply to post by Humint1

 

i don't understand why this matters.
the mainstream mass media manipulates and distorts the Truth on a daily basis. why is it important that this tiny little brooklyn paper which nobody has ever heard of chopped the chicks out of the pic? Also, why is it important to include the "Jewish" prefix? when i first clicked, i assumed it would be about an Israeli paper. Wouldn't it make more sense to say "Brooklyn Newspaper Edits..."? at least that gives us some context.
again, if you could explain why this makes you so angry and you're "sick of it" when nearly every story reported on FOX, MSNBC and CNN has some sort of bias spun into it. if these editors at the "hasidic" paper didn't want the women in the photo, that's their choice. how does it affect us?

While I see your point, if a Catholic newspaper edited out Condolezza Rice during a Bush administration picture it would be very probable the media would say this was racist. The Jewish aspect of this story is not as interesting as why they would take out Hillary Clinton. What is their official reason if they gave one? (probably in the first post I'll check it out).

Originally posted by Humint1

The manipulation of the media hence - the info that the public gets is just pitiful anymore. As is the people who make this possible. This isn't acceptable and I hope many people can see thru the smoke & mirror routine here.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 5/9/2011 by Humint1 because: text

this isn't an example of manipulation of the media. the image is already out and being circulated by papers and websites and t.v. stations with vastly more influence and reach than the source in OP. this is a tiny little publication putting their own religious spin on an image that the whole world has already seen. i bet even the readers of the paper itself had seen the image already, and maybe they thought "good, they took those women out of the photo!"

i'm certainly not defending the paper's stance or the way in which they choose to promote their beliefs, but to me it's far less harmful than FOX news helping the Bush admin sell War in Iraq and Afghanistan or the MSNBC victory lap after Obama released the birth certificate.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
I saw this story on CNN earlier. Here is the lame explanation for editing the image:

According to Rabbi Jason Miller, a blogger who picked up the story Sunday for The Jewish Week, Der Tzitung does not include images of women in print “because it could be considered sexually suggestive.”

religion.blogs.cnn.com...

OMG, more and more insanity.

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by RicoMarston

 

... how does it affect us?

It teaches us that news is not now, nor apparently ever will again be... news. It's what someone else wants you to believe... they way they want you to believe it.

It matters that we recognize and know that this happens in our 'enlightened' times.

good point, good point. i guess that the invalidity of the "news" isn't really "news" to me. i just assume that every piece of information we're "given" by the MSM has someone's dirty little fingerprints on it.

Nice catch, OP.

Slightly off topic, but the world needs some humour:
The Best of the Situation Room LOL Pics

on with the discussion..

reply to post by filosophia


they claim that images of women are too sexually suggestive and that they don't put them in their paper. it's BS and insane, but it's their paper and their right. if a huge paper like NYT or LAT did something like that, I would be more concerned, but how many gentiles do we think are reading this paper? that is, the readers already share the same beliefs and views as the editors, so it's not really harming anybody.

is that the OPs beef though? that the act is sexist? i agree totally.

also, the hypothetical Catholic paper probably WOULD catch heat for that, but again, it's ignorant editors preaching to the ignorant choir. there is a reason i would never turn to a newspaper with allegiances to a church or religion for information.

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by RicoMarston

 

... how does it affect us?

It teaches us that news is not now, nor apparently ever will again be... news. It's what someone else wants you to believe... they way they want you to believe it.

It matters that we recognize and know that this happens in our 'enlightened' times.

yup, the winners always write the history, no matter who they turn out to be. besides, newspapers and news organizations are private businesses, and they can write whatever they damn well feel like writing, don't read it or give it any credence if you disagree.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
I saw this story on CNN earlier. Here is the lame explanation for editing the image:

According to Rabbi Jason Miller, a blogger who picked up the story Sunday for The Jewish Week, Der Tzitung does not include images of women in print “because it could be considered sexually suggestive.”

religion.blogs.cnn.com...

When Bill Clinton read this he laughed so hard coffee actually shot out of his nose.
Hillary? Really? They have jumped the shark and are giving all fundies a bad name.

SEND THE LINK TO ALEX JONES , but before you do that, i need to gather some buddies and beer so we can enjoy him going off his rocker and watch the vein's popping, obviously bets are always placed if during the show he falls into a seizure from excessive ranting...

i simply could not resist.... www.facebook.com...




P.S.

I still think his cia haircut should be posted up in the white house situation room as guidelines to the new agents on how they should cut their hair..

Originally posted by RicoMarston
reply to post by filosophia

 

they claim that images of women are too sexually suggestive and that they don't put them in their paper. it's BS and insane, but it's their paper and their right. if a huge paper like NYT or LAT did something like that, I would be more concerned, but how many gentiles do we think are reading this paper? that is, the readers already share the same beliefs and views as the editors, so it's not really harming anybody.

is that the OPs beef though? that the act is sexist? i agree totally.

also, the hypothetical Catholic paper probably WOULD catch heat for that, but again, it's ignorant editors preaching to the ignorant choir. there is a reason i would never turn to a newspaper with allegiances to a church or religion for information.

I just finished writing about this aspect of the issue in a thread that was subsequently closed, so I'll repeat it here:

Seeing as they bill themselves as an ultra-religious paper, if they needed to edit it for religious reasons, I suppose I could live with that (although I still find it bizzare and retrogressive, personally), but it is dishonest to simply photoshop people out. A blacked-out sillohuette, for example, with the name included in the caption, would be more honest (if still strange to most people's minds). But to simply photoshop the woman out implies she was never there. Perhaps its time for the paper's editor to dust off his copy of 1984 and ask himself if this is really what he wanted to be when he grew up...

Yes, they are a religious newspaper, fine. But they are still a NEWSpaper, which implies they report FACTS, even if those facts get spun through the lens of whatever their viewpoint happens to be. Every news outlet is free to spin the facts, but society assumes that a NEWSpaper has a responsibility to at least not play havoc with the basic facts. When you start chopping photos, you are well into the Stalin zone. Lots of us know this goes on all the time anyway (and not just with obscure religious newspapers), but that doesn't mean we have to like it.

This is why I like Canada's media system over all others. They have a law in Canada that prohibits any bias news stories.