FailedMessiah.com/Official White House Photo by Pete Souza
Hillary Clinton has pulled a surprising disappearing act in one newspaper’s representation of the moment when President Obama and his staff found out about the death of Osama Bin Laden.
Der Zeitung, a Brooklyn-based Hasidic newspaper, created a firestorm of controversy on Friday after digitally removing Secretary of State Clinton from the now-iconic photo of the President and his national security team monitoring a raid on Bin Laden. The original image released by the White House (above on the right) came with a note saying it was “not be manipulated in any way.”
Critics jumped on the paper for its bizarre, ostensibly sexist decision, with at least one writer even hypothesizing that the paper’s editors “don’t like the idea of a woman with that much political power.”
The newspaper eventually issued a statement, apologizing for causing any offense but claiming the photo was edited because religious belief dictates they not publish images of women.
“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,” Der Zeitung said.
“In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status. 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 to women, which is certainly never our intention. We apologize if this was seen as offensive.”
Of course, photo manipulation in journalism is nothing new. LIFE Magazine removed a fence post from John Filo’s Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph of a screaming student at the Kent State shootings in 1970. In 1982, National Geographic Magazine digitally moved two Egyptian pyramids closer together so they would fit on the cover. Like the recent Clinton debacle, these incidents have contributed to the debate over exactly to what extent do manipulated photos portray unrealistic images to the public.
View Comments (2)
No one mentioned the other woman in the very back, on the right, who was also removed.
"...we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging to women..."
What other impression would modifying the image give, especially since the White House release of this photo came with a note that specifically said "not to manipulate the image in any way." What part of that sentence did they NOT understand.
They actually thought they could falsify the image because of their religious beliefs. That's totally unacceptable journalism and their response reflects it.