Hasidic Newspaper Apologizes for Editing Clinton Out of Situation Room Photo

Stay with me now. So this is an edited version of an already edited image of some people pretending to watch a fake mission go down. One question: does a fake of a fake of a fake of a fake make something real?

Sorry, but without a body or a head on display, this account never took place.

Did they edit Golda Meir out of photos?
SHE was,

Golda Meir

Meir was elected Prime Minister of Israel on 17 March 1969

Seems really silly for them to remove Hillary, even if I am not a big fan of hers.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


It's kind of like making a photo copy of a photo copy of a photo copy. The real image continues to get distorted with each copy.

>sigh<

do they photoshop their mothers out of family photos or what?


there really is something very wrong with people who think that women should not be in photos because it might be 'sexual'.

i think the problem is in THEIR minds.

To all women - please can you take over, and start running the world , and sort it out.

Originally posted by TheMessenger1
This is why I like Canada's media system over all others. They have a law in Canada that prohibits any bias news stories.

Right, because we as Americans can not
do what we are doing now and point something like this out?

You have your right to like *Canadian media system over all*

We do not need laws to govern this..

If we don't like it we will not read/watch it...

Like most here I could care less what this paper does,
I do care that they have a right to publish as they wish....

We don't have to support it..

Any laws to govern this are unneeded...

reply to post by Humint1


I can not believe it. In this day of supposedly equal rights and laws against discrimination especially coming from a group of people who are always pushing anti-defamation agendas. Then literally create a picture and claim that this is what happened and what it looked like in regards to government officials. Scandal sheets such as the sun doesn't go that far and claim its news. Then cover their actions by claiming that women aren't allowed how sexist is that. This should not be tolerated anywherre including the US. It makes me angry because I lived through the civil rights, women rights, human rights time period. This newspaper if thats what they want to call themselves demonstrates what they claim that their religion not only believes but promotes. They want to be such arrogant bigots they need to go to ISrael> the problem is I doubt if they would be welcome there either.

reply to post by butcherguy


Most of the "ultra-orthodox" Hasidic Jews do not even acknowledge the existence of Israel because God has not brought them there himself. Based on that I very highly doubt that Golda Meir's name would ever be mentioned in their newspaper, nor would any Israeli politician.

Did Clinton do some Israel bashing? thought she was cool and in. Anyhow, editing the picture is okay, she did kind of ruin it with her stupid look. Heck wish editing them out of pictures would edit them out of office too. That whole group is worse than the last group. They all suck and are secretive liars all of them. Only reason Clinton even got in the cabinet was cause they needed her to shut up and drop out of the Presidential. And for god sakes they didn't want her at VP. And what's up with Joe Biden he used to be cool and hard hitting now he is just a waste. And Obama is so confused and running in circles. He should of fixed the economy first before trying the healthcare stuff. Now he can;t do anything and everyone hates him.

They should edit them all out. None of those people deserve the honor of the offices they hold.

reply to post by Chesster


Two people were removed from the photo and the common element is both are female.

It has nothing to do with Israel because this paper is a production of an ultra-orthodox Hasidic group that does not support Israel.

reply to post by nihilus


Then that is okay... It's like editing out the maids in an oval office picture. Except the maids are more useful than a clinton.

Originally posted by silent thunder

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.

edit on 5/9/11 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)

you're right; society makes the mistake of expecting newspapers to report facts. if it's in print, it must be true!
i am always hopeful that what I'm reading has been fact checked and verified, but i always take it with a grain of salt. most news stories go to print with a scant handful of people ever having read the final copy. now factor in the religious aspect of the publication and you should have absolutely no reason to believe that this paper is concerned with the facts. just ask the editors about dinosaur fossils.

i laughed at this myself

but there was a comment made in here with reference canadian law about "unbiased" news.

well here in america we have that pesky little thing called the us constitution and two important things called

freedom of speech and expression and i dont care where you live in the world there is news bias.

people are free to say what they want read what they want and say what they want as people are still free to either believe it or dismiss it.

call it whatever you will "entertainment" or "news" or whatever you wish.

and then theres that other pesky constitutional thing call freedom of religion.

all i can say is if you dont like it dont read it.

It looks to me like this Jewish newspaper is using the original picture, and the picture we saw on American news had Hillary photoshopped into it. I find it unlikely they were able to so perfectly recreate the man's arm who is 'behind' Hillary. Anyone else think that maybe the Jewish paper has the real photo, and an American CIA/FBI/ABC agency photoshopped Hillary and that other lady into the picture?

reply to post by againuntodust


Ya I was wondering how the heck the grabbed the back layer of the man to bring to the front if it was just a regular photograph then hilary clinton would be the only information the camera/picture would have. Unless they are using a super secret CIA camera that can digitize a whole room at all angles even when bloked by an object.

reply to post by Humint1


This is just completely nuts... and these guys expect to be taken seriously?

To me its like they are trying to tell the people something.
The Jewish aren't like the Muslims, as far as my little amount of knowledge goes.. aren't Jewish women and men ultimately equal?
So, its not a 'master-sex' aspect to me, its more them trying to be coy, or clever about something.

Maybe they are showing us the ease to which it was done and to a credible standard?

I don't know, to me it doesn't seem like a Jewish thing to remove a woman from a photo, from done for a specific reason.

Originally posted by nihilus
reply to post by Chesster

 

Two people were removed from the photo and the common element is both are female.

It has nothing to do with Israel because this paper is a production of an ultra-orthodox Hasidic group that does not support Israel.

It simply amazes me the level of stupidity within today's society. Considering we are on the first step of interstellar travel and yet back on this planet there are individuals who see the female species as an outcast. I guess one needs to remind them and anyone who thinks alike, that it was a woman who gave birth tho them and not the male. The male simply supplies the trigger and the female allows her human body to be the host.

Excuse the analogy, i have tried my best.

reply to post by Aggie Man


oooh. Hillary gasping (or having an alergic attack?) while wearing a pant-suit watching a Muslim snuff film...nothing gets my juices flowing. HOT!

Objective truth and conservative censorship are incompatible.

"Shes too sexy for the Jews... Too Sexy for the Jews... Too sexy for the Jews....so sexy she rules!"

Sung to the tune of Right Said Fred....

I see a new Weird AL Yankovic song in the making.