Clinton Removed From Historical Picture

I can't believe this. This is the 21st century and men are still threatened by the notion of women in power!

NRK Article

The only two women in the picture, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and chief of counterterrorism Audrey Tomason, was edited out before publication

I hope they get some flack for this. It's pretty insulting to women everywhere, not to mention Americans for having their history altered by foreign media (in an obvious way).

I know it's in Norsk, but use a decent browser and it should auto-translate. If not, get a better browser.

You really consider that obvious propaganda image a historical picture?

To each his own...

I dont get why people think media, regardless the country of origin, would be honest and forthcoming with useful and accurate information. It just doesn't happen. So, I say.. Really? Who cares what a media did.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Yes, the picture is propaganda. The people in the government and military do nothing but take fake pictures all day.

Why do you think it's propaganda in the first place?

Originally posted by Cuervo
I know it's in Norsk, but use a decent browser and it should auto-translate. If not, get a better browser.

Trykker ikke seksuelt ladede bilder Avisens målgruppe er den ultraortodokse jødiske befolkningen i New York-bydelen Brooklyn. Der Tzitung trykker ikke bilder av kvinner fordi de mener bildene kan bli oppfattet som seksuelt provoserende, skriver The Jewish Week. The Jewish Week spekulerer i at bildemanipuleringen kommer av en ideologisk innvending mot kvinner i maktposisjoner.

Yes, this is rediculus.
The news paper "Der Tszitung" said above there, that they does not print pictures of women.
Because "the pictures can be sexually provoking".
Geee... What a piece of bull.

reply to post by tomten


haha.. I mean, Hill dawg is a looker. I got some posters of her in conveniently placed spaces..

thats funny

the original picture was nothing but propaganda.

they removed both women to make it an all male room

those sexist pigs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


too funny im sorry.

i don't even imagine if this paper was publish in country as iran or other muslim country i'm sure this thread will be with a lot of comment...this is really hypocritical...

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
You really consider that obvious propaganda image a historical picture?

To each his own...

So is the moon landing, the flag being planted in Iwo Jima, the signing of the Declaration, etc. They are all obvious propaganda images. You wouldn't be upset if a foreign paper altered those images?

Besides, I'm not appalled by the defacing of our national heritage; I'm upset by the sexist motivations behind it.

Originally posted by Cuervo
It's pretty insulting to women everywhere, not to mention Americans for having their history altered by foreign media (in an obvious way).

Just to clear up this mistake, the newspaper that altered and originally published the photo is not "foreign media" .

The Brooklyn-based Hasidic newspaper, Der Zeitung,

www.washingtonpost.com... l

Their responding statement includes this explanation

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

and this qualification

We are proud Americans of the Jewish faith, and there is no conflict in that, and we will with the help of the Almighty continue as law-abiding citizens, in this great country of our's, until the ultimate redemption.

www.washingtonpost.com... 9/AFfJbVYG_blog.html

reply to post by WTFover


Thanks for the clarification. It still rubs me the wrong way. God-sanctioned sexism is still sexism.

reply to post by Cuervo


No problem.

Though it may be sexist, I believe it is specifically protected by the First Amendment.

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by WTFover

 

Thanks for the clarification. It still rubs me the wrong way. God-sanctioned sexism is still sexism.

It rubs me the wrong way too. And I can not condone religion for this type behavior. I don't care what they believe.

These two women educated themselves and hold important positions in this country. They've worked as hard as any man to be credited and valued in their positions.

It is inexcusable.

So are the childish immature remarks.

I'm glad the gangstress was removed.
2nd line.

Maybe because Audrey Tomason really wasn't there-as I concluded on an earlier thread about the situation room-she looked placed into the image.
Clinton *cough Bilderberg* was surely there!

Its the first time I see the pic with them edited out. What will the edited picture be used for?

reply to post by Cassius666


www.washingtonpost.com...

www.washingtonpost.com...

I don't know anyone who reads Hasidic news.

It may as well have been a white supremacist newsletter. No one other than the target audience who's already set in their way will see it. At the end of the day, it doesn't change anything or alter history. No one with a free mind is reading it.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
You really consider that obvious propaganda image a historical picture?

To each his own...

Let's see, the world's biggest boogeyman of the last decade has been killed, and there is a picture of the big adults in congress watching the show or slideshow. No, nothing of importance in that photo op, toss it in the trash.

Back to the story, although I despise that woman and believe she belongs in pound me in the beep prison, it's still quite backwater to have females removed from a photo like this. I wouldn't doubt someone told them to do it, so Hillary can keep it in her arsenal of question-deflecting topics. Call me crazy.