Newspaper Removes Facts from Pictures. Here it's women. Is this always Censorship?

[Doug Kerr]

Note: This title is mine, not Doug's original somewhat humorous original. It's changed to avoid cultural sensitivity to nuanced but innocent language and to reflect the clear importance of the thread, so it will be accessed by the search function in OPF and external search engines. I hope I can be forgiven for this! ADK



The Orthodox Jewish blog failedmessiah.com called attention to the fact the the Brooklyn, New York-based Hasidic newspaper paper Der Tzitung published Pete Souza's iconic photo of President Obama and aides in the White House Situation Room, monitoring the progress of the raid against Osama bin Laden, after deleting the images of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Advisor to the Vice President Audrey Tomason.

The paper reportedly indicated that this was done pursuant to their policy of never printing photos of women in its pages because it thinks they could be sexually suggestive.

It seems as if the modification was in overt contravention of the explicit conditions of the release of the photo.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Jerome Marot]

Quite baffling.

The interested reader may see the original and edited pictures here:

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2011/05/hasidic-paper-removes-hillary-clinton-from-osama-picture-567.html

 

[Asher Kelman]

Doug and Jerome,

This is audacious censorship and also total lack of appreciation of the concept of authorship. The men fear effect of women on men! That comes from narrow education. I found the same with a head of Public Relations who chopped up my work to make a new work! There's a complete absence of appreciation of the concepts of respect for authorship that only education in a university can set straight. Unfortunately, neither the orthodox rabbis, (nor the PR man who recently hijacked my own work), have the slightest appreciation of the sanctity of creative works.

It's laughable but also sad. The only way to deal with it is be not giving such folk access to one's pictures without signed agreement as to how they may be used. It's not that the folk are intentionally bad human beings. They just haven't got the sufficient education to approach a concept of "respect for art and authorship."

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Oh, good gravy!

 

[Doug Kerr]

Reportedly the newspaper has apologized for not honoring the conditions of release of the photo that was altered:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110509/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bin_laden_doctored_photo

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Reportedly the newspaper has apologized for not honoring the conditions of release of the photo that was altered:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110509/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bin_laden_doctored_photo

Hi Doug,

Amazing, in this day and age.

If showing images of the female form is "immodest", what does that say of images of men? Isn't that immodest then?

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Sandrine Bascouert]

Yep, I feel very insulted seeing so many men in the same room, with no women at all.... Something's being hidden there.

(John Edgar Hoover Syndrome...)

I wish they could be in their birthday-suit at least.....

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I wish they could be in their birthday-suit at least.....

No, you got that wrong. "Shock and awe" was a tactic under the Bush administration ... ;-)

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Doug,

Amazing, in this day and age.

If showing images of the female form is "immodest", what does that say of images of men? Isn't that immodest then?

Bart,

The audience of the Zeitung is limited to orthodox men. Amongst this group, there's an obsession with not being led astray. Women are covered except for hands and face, even in hot weather. They are stuck in the 14th century for a lot of their attitudes. However, women are held in high esteem! A paradox but true!

Asher

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart,

The audience of the Zeitung is limited to orthodox men. Amongst this group, there's an obsession with not being led astray. Women are covered except for hands and face, even in hot weather. They are stuck in the 14th century for a lot of their attitudes. However, women are held in high esteem! A paradox but true!

Hi Asher,

I know the arguments, but they don't fly. It's those men's obsession that's made into a burdon for the women, and I'm not talking about this specific branch of religion or other believe system. Others use the same flawed arguments. It's the easy way out, at the expense of others.

Dogmas start where thinking stops ...

And to get back on topic, it distorts historical facts. Being selective in one's historical heritage can lead to repeating it.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

As usual a huge amount of opinions based on a huge amount of ignorance. As an Orthodox Jew I find it quite offensive...

 

[Sandrine Bascouert]

I don't want to argue right here, but I find the word "orthodox" quite inaccurate. To me, "orthodox" means "who or that follow the initial book of rules" (in religion, there is also some orthodoxy in photography: zone system, leica worshippers ). The little I know Ben, and if he defines himself as "orthodox" (which is good enough for me) as nothing to do with what I see/hear about those people, maybe I am wrong. I come from a countrywhere a woman can be a rabbi (not just one) so it doesn't makes sense to me, all these differences. To me the Zeitung doesn't sound "orthodox" they just sound "sect" ... again, maybe I'm wrong.

But don't forget that we use to have the middle age in Europe. Courteous love, minstrels, knights and princes, all these men, they valued women very much - unless it was a peasant's daughter, of course.


Just my two cents, as you know I'm not familiar with religion.

 

[Asher Kelman]

As usual a huge amount of opinions based on a huge amount of ignorance. As an Orthodox Jew I find it quite offensive...

Ben,

For sure there's ignorance as Hasidim are, by design, self-segregated. Their attitude to women is governed by the highest respect, not coming from any malevolent intents. I don't think we should be offended that folk are amazed and concerned that 2 women are made to disappear from a White House photograph. After all, that's a really universally unacceptable act in modern Western Society. So why be offended? All we have to do is explain so folk can have insight into the motivations of the Hasid who wishes to be not distracted by the female form.

So Ben, I hope you will look at this again. Of course, the first thoughts might be laughter or even ridicule as we ourselves have reacted to many strange customs of ancient cultures. Still, giving folk insight is the way to go.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

I don't want to argue right here, but I find the word "orthodox" quite inaccurate. To me, "orthodox" means "who or that follow the initial book of rules" (in religion, there is also some orthodoxy in photography: zone system, leica worshippers ). The little I know Ben, and if he defines himself as "orthodox" (which is good enough for me) as nothing to do with what I see/hear about those people, maybe I am wrong. I come from a countrywhere a woman can be a rabbi (not just one) so it doesn't makes sense to me, all these differences. To me the Zeitung doesn't sound "orthodox" they just sound "sect" ... again, maybe I'm wrong.

But don't forget that we use to have the middle age in Europe. Courteous love, minstrels, knights and princes, all these men, they valued women very much - unless it was a peasant's daughter, of course.

Just my two cents, as you know I'm not familiar with religion.

So Sandrine, if you are not familiar with religion, you can hardly argue the fitness of the word Orthodox in the context of the spread of Jewish thought. Furthermore, the word Rabbi applied to a woman, for most Jews, would be similar to having one apply the word Apple to a computer when it really describes a new entity. An apple computer is as much an apple as a female "Rabbi" is a Rabbi. Why? Well, an apple in the computer store is made in a particular way and has characteristics and performance one expects of it. Similarly, going to a Reformed Synagogue, (called by the Reform, a Temple), the female Rabbi delivers a service her congregation expects. However, no matter how good she is at her job, she couldn't be ever deemed a rabbi in an orthodox community. Her likely total lack of talmudic training, for a start and then, (unless she was serving just the women, an altogether different question), she couldn't work as a Rabbi, (for the whole congregation), as the men couldn't, by their piety, pray with her and see her face and form and still focus on prayer!

Words like orthodox, Rabbi or even doctor only work in the specific context of a section of our cultures. The coverage of the word shifts remarkably as the context changes.

Back to this case of removing women from a picture, the editors likely had not the slightest idea that what they were doing was wrong. Rather, in order to show the picture, doing so was a necessity or the readers would immediately throw away that page!

One has to respect other folks ways. Similarly, the Zeitung will have to obey the expectations of photographers and not fiddle with the content!

Asher

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

One has to respect other folks ways.

Well, herein lies the crux. The respect isn't always mutual. This goes beyond live and let live, which isn't respect IMHO. There are limits as to what's tolerable, and that counts for both sides involved. The respect is in how much we tolerate.

I have difficulty when people marginalize the rights of e.g. women, especially under the guise of esteem and respect. I also have difficulty with distorting history by doctoring documentary photographs.

Similarly, the Zeitung will have to obey the expectations of photographers and not fiddle with the content!

I think it goes further than disrespecting photographers. I'll leave it at that.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Paul Abbott]

she couldn't work as a Rabbi, (for the whole congregation), as the men couldn't, by their piety, pray with her and see her face and form and still focus on prayer!

Asher

This makes me laugh. And there's me thinking they're pious!

 

[Sandrine Bascouert]

So, let's say this discussion is out of my reach...I was just pointing a "semantic" issue, on the word "orthodox" in general.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Judaism does not believe in encouraging conversion so I'm just writing this stuff to clear up some misunderstandings not to try and 'push' these beliefs on anyone. I studied for 6 years in various talmudical institutions both in the UK and in Jerusalem and both my father and father in law are internationally known Rabbi's should anyone question my knowledge in the following:

Firstly the term Orthodox does not refer to the Chassidic sects which are a new phenomenon in the Jewish world being just some 300 years old and unlike the Orthodox are a remarkeable departure from the Orthodox beliefs and lifestyle which has little changed in 2000 years in essence. Reform and Conservative Judaism are of the same age as the Chassidic sects. Just as no one would confuse a Greek Orthodox church with a modern Baptist congregation so too the practises of these beliefs within the Jewish people cannot compared from one to the other.

Orthodox Judaism traces its roots back 3000 years to the giving of the Torah and follows the rules of the Torah as set down in the Mishna and the Talmud and further codified in the 'Shulchan Aruch'. Although the Torah is a fluid entity which meets the needs of modern questions the concept that it is outmoded in any aspect is not acceptable to Orthodox Jews. The many deviations along that line over the millenia have all been as short lived as the popular philosophies of the time which sparked them.

Orthodox Judaism believes in freedom of choice. You have the choice not to believe or follow the Torah. No one will force or be able to force another to follow the Torah. Those who live their lives by the traditions of Orthodox Jewish tradition and thought do so BY CHOICE!

There are many huge misconceptions with regards to Orthodox Jewish thought about the relationships between men and women. Firstly the rules of dress and modesty apply equally to both men and women. Men are expected to cover up as much as women. Secondly although women are allowed to gaze upon men, the opposite is not the case. Men are not supposed to gaze upon women (looking at someone for a specific purpose is of course allowed such as in conversation, etc. The term 'gaze' has specific connetations). As such for example at a wedding the women usually enjoy watching the men dancing but the men are not to enjoy watching the women dance. Segregation of the sexes is specifically to subjegate the men whose thought processes are not to be trusted and for no other reason (such as the subjegation of the female sex)! It is the claim of the latter by those ignorant of Jewish thought which has Orthodox Jews so bemused.

Sexual 'duty' within a marriage is incumbant upon the man and not the woman within Orthodox Jewish law. It's even written into 'Ketuba' (Marriage document) and a woman can demand a divorce if she is not satisfied with her husbands attentions. A man has no 'right' to his wife whatsoever in the bed or indeed out of it and infact it is the woman who has that right. The only financial claim that a man has over his wife is the right of inheritance when she passes away.

The only power of enforcement that the Jewish courts retain is the right to force a man to divorce his wife if she so chooses and she does not need a specific reason. A man who refuses to grant his wife a divorce or pay the accompanying settlement will be thrown in prison in Israel, excommunicated and denied entry into a synagogue, a Jewish burial, service at Jewish stores elsewhere and in Europe at least may end up with a broken leg or two which the local police wink on given how much patience normal people have for these kinds of lowlife.

So now on to the question of this newspaper though indeed it could have been any of the Orthodox newspapers worldwide. First of all let us remind ourselves that the people who choose to buy this newspaper are those who already, voluntarily, choose to follow an Orthodox Jewish lifestyle. If they didn't agree with the policies of the newspaper then they could just reach for the next paper on the newstand. The Orthodox Jewish papers do not print images of women period. As men are not supposed to gaze upon women and at least 50% of the readers are men, it is a lot easier to provide a blanket rule rather than have to justify later why they considered a picture like this OK and not another. Although it is a decision much questioned and discussed in the Orthodox Jewish world as people are looking for a specific purpose rather than gazing, I cannot myself fault them on a decision which absolves them of future controversy and finger pointing, I know and have worked for the editors of several Orthodox Jewish newspapers and when discussing this issue with them the consensus has been 'it's not that we believe in it, it's just that we don't want to have to justify ourselves with every image which we do or don't print'.

To sum up, as Orthodox Jews we choose to limit ourselves as men according to our traditions and laws. Women are far less limited (they can be trusted more!) and indeed have the upper hand in the male/female relationship. The dress codes apply equally between men and women. So. Are we to be allowed our freedom of religion or are others to be allowed to apply the sexist rules of the other religions with which they are familiar to use as a yardstick when judging us?

 

[Paul Abbott]

Oh God, can this topic be moved?! It is a bloody news item after all.

People comment on this yet don't bother to comment on any photography taking place in this section. In a photographic forum how ignorant is that!?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Oh God, can this topic be moved?! It is a bloody news item after all.

People comment on this yet don't bother to comment on any photography taking place in this section. In a photographic forum how ignorant is that!?

Paul,

You are right, Ben is right, but all the folk here do comment on other's work! However, they should now do more!

I see an immediate reflex reaction to societies where there's modesty as a norm. It's worth looking at more closely. We see the most extreme cases as disrespect and egregious, for sure, but the essence has good values. Having a balance between exploitation of women by sexualizing even from childhood on the one hand with having women wrapped up is worth considering.

With respect,

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Oy vey iz mir

Oy vey iz mir, I'm concerned about my original subject being arbitrarily modified. I authorized no such thing.

My report was of a case of failure to respect the works of others, not the outlook of the Hasidim toward woman.

Such intrusion indeed seems to be quite a problem, and not just in Brooklyn.

Moderator: please delete my original post, which has been corrupted.

Doug

 

[Asher Kelman]

The key issue here is not equity or even exploitation of women, subjects dear to the heart of all our various cultures. I'm sure we can all find shocking instances in each culture we examine. The issues here is not these. Rather it's the use of new photographs as plastic tools we can alter to our purpose. The photograph, for the first time, offers humanity the opportunity to learn of what really happens, not the fanciful spun stories which often are merely propaganda or entertainment. So to us, the news photograph is sacred. This is enshrined in the laws of most countries.

Still, the news is altered long before that by filtering at each successive stage in news gathering, as follows:

1. The press ignores whole blocks of the world. For example, outside of Jerusalem and Beirut, there are generally one or two journalists from each of the Western press giants covering the entire North African set of states on the Mediterranean. That's why, right now, the movements in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya came as a surprise. The plight of Sunnis or Druze in Syria was simply not reported. Even now, the quests of Statehood for Kurds or Berbers is of no consequence.

2. Assigned photographers may and do choose to report based on the political leanings of the news service.

3. The editors at home again decide what photographs are important or acceptable to their core readers and advertisers.

All this is without cutting up a single picture. So, in this context, the deletion of Hilary, while utterly unacceptable and unethical is of no real consequence to spreading the truth of the matter. However all the decisions before that are orders of magnitude more significant.

Even if we had pictures of Syrian Sunni being beaten without the women being shown, we'd understand the horrors being perpetrated. Of course, actually removing these victims in a newspaper of a community is still wrong. We'd say, choose another picture or get permission! A footnote should appear, "women were also beaten but not shown".

In the case of removing Secretary of State Clinton from the picture of Obama, his officers and cabinet watching the bin Laden raid going down, the damage to the spread of news was zero.

Asher

 

[Maris Rusis]

Men are not supposed to gaze upon women (looking at someone for a specific purpose is of course allowed such as in conversation, etc. The term 'gaze' has specific connetations).

Segregation of the sexes is specifically to subjegate the men whose thought processes are not to be trusted and for no other reason (such as the subjegation of the female sex)!

Thank you Ben for your cogent words on Orthodox Judaism. I was struck by the sentences quoted above and how they seem to imply a remarkable ability of photographs to be full proxies for subject matter.

It is one thing that Orthodox men should not gaze at women but the nub here is whether they may gaze at photographs of women. Photographs of women are not women. The censure of the "male gaze" has, as Ben points out, a deep historic origin which antedates the invention of photography by millenia. The equating of "photographs of women" and "women" must have happened very recently (since 1839, at least) and is surely a notion invented by some man and justified by an appeal to the "fluidity" of the Torah. It may be an unworthy thought but the idea comes to me that the extremes of Orthodoxy emerge from competitive pietism with each man seeking opportunity to be more pious than his neighbour.

Maybe the thought processes of men who gaze at women are not trusted and the women may be in danger of harm. Fair enough. So, by analogy, men who gaze at photographs of women put those photographs in harm's way even to the extent of perhaps destroying or defacing them. But if that is a sin then it must be a very mild one indeed.

I wonder if there is a problem with shadows. A shadow is an image of whoever casts it and last time I checked women cast shadows. The world must be a moral minefield for those who must avert their eyes from shadows of women on sunny days only to yearn for the relief of overcast days or nightfall. Travelling the path of Orthodoxy may offer special rewards, may command special respect, but surely it can't be easy.

 

[Don Ferguson Jr.]

But Hillary said she was only coughing

 

[Jerome Marot]

If I may voice an opinion over a subject I know little about: this is not censorship, this is manipulation. If it were censorship, we have had the women covered by a black rectangle on the photograph. Then the reader knows that two women are present, but he is spared their images. I could probably agree with that.

In the present case, the women were removed and the scene manipulated so that it appears that no woman was present. That, in my opinion, is completely different: the reader is presented with an altered reality, a world were no woman can be present in a meeting at this level of responsibility.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Me: Ayesha, sur-aa. Gar-a-bi. ( Normal Arabic:. Ayesha, quickly/quick. Come near )
Me: Tig-ra-yee ( Arabic: Read. Feminine ).

Ayesha ( reading ): Sh-loan! ? ( Gulf Arabic Conversational Slang: What's this!? Literally means what's the color!?)
Ayesha: La! ( Arabic: No! )
Ayesha: Non! ( Morrocan Arabic slang: No! )
Ayesha: Mush Ma'ool! ( Egyptian Arabic conversational: No! )
Ayesha: No! ( English..No! )

Ayesha: Khal-leek Ba-eid ( Arabic conversational: Stay away. Implied meaning: Don't get involved in this).

Me: Ma gul-t wa-la ka-tab-t shai. ( Arabic conversational : I didn't say or write anything )

Ayesha: Ashwa! Leaves.( Arabic Desert Slang: Good ! Implied meaning: better that way; better for me. English: Leaves, goes away)

Note 1: Ayesha.. ( Pure Classical Arabic. One who is Alive. The Living. Feminine Gender Singular.)
Note 2: Ayesha..my wife's name.
Note 3: Me..your's truly.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

If I may voice an opinion over a subject I know little about: this is not censorship, this is manipulation. If it were censorship, we have had the women covered by a black rectangle on the photograph. Then the reader knows that two women are present, but he is spared their images. I could probably agree with that.

In the present case, the women were removed and the scene manipulated so that it appears that no woman was present. That, in my opinion, is completely different: the reader is presented with an altered reality, a world were no woman can be present in a meeting at this level of responsibility.

Hi Jerome,

My sentiments exactly!

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Asher Kelman]

If I may voice an opinion over a subject I know little about: this is not censorship, this is manipulation. If it were censorship, we have had the women covered by a black rectangle on the photograph. Then the reader knows that two women are present, but he is spared their images. I could probably agree with that.

In the present case, the women were removed and the scene manipulated so that it appears that no woman was present. That, in my opinion, is completely different: the reader is presented with an altered reality, a world were no woman can be present in a meeting at this level of responsibility.

Jerome,

That's a great idea. Still, we're assuming that Hillary's figure would not distract the men! Likely the female figure would need to be blocked too in some cases. I wonder if blocking out heads is at all allowed in using Reuters pictures? As long as there's an annotation that the person was removed for reason of protecting their identity, security or in this case "modesty" I don't object. However, if it's designed to hide facts like a women is involved in decisions of state, then that's both manipulation and censorship.

Asher

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Thank you Ben for your cogent words on Orthodox Judaism. I was struck by the sentences quoted above and how they seem to imply a remarkable ability of photographs to be full proxies for subject matter.

It is one thing that Orthodox men should not gaze at women but the nub here is whether they may gaze at photographs of women. Photographs of women are not women. The censure of the "male gaze" has, as Ben points out, a deep historic origin which antedates the invention of photography by millenia. The equating of "photographs of women" and "women" must have happened very recently (since 1839, at least) and is surely a notion invented by some man and justified by an appeal to the "fluidity" of the Torah. It may be an unworthy thought but the idea comes to me that the extremes of Orthodoxy emerge from competitive pietism with each man seeking opportunity to be more pious than his neighbour.

Maybe the thought processes of men who gaze at women are not trusted and the women may be in danger of harm. Fair enough. So, by analogy, men who gaze at photographs of women put those photographs in harm's way even to the extent of perhaps destroying or defacing them. But if that is a sin then it must be a very mild one indeed.

I wonder if there is a problem with shadows. A shadow is an image of whoever casts it and last time I checked women cast shadows. The world must be a moral minefield for those who must avert their eyes from shadows of women on sunny days only to yearn for the relief of overcast days or nightfall. Travelling the path of Orthodoxy may offer special rewards, may command special respect, but surely it can't be easy.

Maris, the reason why men may not gaze on woman applies equally to photographs of women. Again, gazing and looking have very different conetations. As a photographer I can photograph women dancing even though others are not permitted to watch it for entertainment and enjoyment. Similarly there is no reason why one cannot look at someone as they talk to them, etc. That men should not enjoy women as physical objects does not stop at the 3D, it is no different in a photograph, why should it?

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

BTW I personally feel that these papers should not have done that to the picture, they shouldn't have used it period rather than this stalinesque type editing of history albeit unintentional. It does seem rather beneath intelligent people to have to resort to this kind of thing.