Where's Hillary?


Last week the Brooklyn-based Hasidic newspaper Di Tzeitung ran an official White House photo of 13 administration officials receiving "an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room"—except that in Di Tzeitung's version, two of the officials were missing: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Director for Counterterrorism Audrey Tomason. What do they have in common? Hint: It starts with v and rhymes with Mulva. The paper has a policy against publishing images of women because they might be "sexually suggestive."

Jason Miller notes a similar incident in 2009, when the Israeli newspaper Yated Neeman, catering to the sensibilities of its haredi readers, clumsily stuck men's heads on the bodies of two female Cabinet members.

[Thanks to Jaime Aron for the tip. Thanks to Nomic for noting that Der should have been Di.]

NEXT: ObamaCare's Day in Court

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hilary Clinton? Sexually suggestive?

    Nah, there must be another reason.

    1. Does Di Tzeitung have a significant lesbian readership?

  2. A picture of Hillary might be “sexually suggestive”?

    1. By “sexually suggestive”, they must mean suggestive of the fact that there are, in fact, two sexes.

      1. I see no evidence of your claim when looking at the Secretary of State.

  3. Curly hair gets me off.

  4. The idea of Hillary Clinton being sexually suggestive would make me laugh if I wasn’t busy vomiting.

    1. I’m into both Hillary and vomit. You up for a three-way?

    2. I feel your pain, Joe.

      1. Okay…admit it you would have killed to have been able to pull this type of thing off!

        1. Are you kidding? I watched her suck Yeltsin dry and then make him breakfast!

  5. 2 probs – 1st, the paper shouldve said in the caption the photo was altered & 2d, the white house-released photo states not to alter the image w/o approval.

    1. Yeah–the second biggest problem of all with this is that somebody didn’t lick obama’s boots to get approval to modify the image.

      1. Joke handle fail.

    2. The New York Times doesn’t mention in the caption when they put a black rectangle over the nipples of a bare breasted woman, because the readers already know that women in real life don’t have those black rectangles. It’s the same with the Di Tzeitung. Hasidic readers know that erasing women from pictures is standard and that the real group may have contained women.

  6. Another success for Photoshop’s Screeching Harridan filter.

    canada ei
    service canada ei
    ei service canada
    Canadian Health System
    community health systems
    socialized medicine
    social medicine
    socialized healthcare
    social science & medicine
    social science medicine
    canadian health
    canadian mental health
    canadian health system
    canadian health association
    canadian mental health association
    canadian health statistics
    university health service
    health center
    health services university
    health service university
    university of health services
    harvard health services
    student health services
    canada health act
    canadian health agency
    agency of canada
    healthcare system in canada
    hrsa loan repayment
    hospital health systems
    canadian health act
    health system canada
    unemployment insurance canada
    unemployment insurance in canada
    service canada ei
    health agency canada
    first university in canada
    world health organisations
    world health organizations
    organisation world health
    the world health organization
    the world health organisation
    health agency of canada
    public health agency
    public health agency canada
    canada health agency
    health canada agency

  8. How late are you on this, guys? A week? Someone had to tip you? Is this how you learned that Osama was dead?

    1. I someone boiling soiled undershorts?

      1. That’s a sautee, you palateless rube.

  9. Di Tzeitung, BTW not Der Tzeitung. This ain’t German, y’all, it’s Yiddish.

    1. But Zeitung is also feminine in German!

    2. Zeitung is feminine in German, too. In German, it would be Die Zeitung, not Der Zeitung.

      At least, that’s in the nominative case. In the dative case, which would be triggered by the preposition in, it would be der.

      However, I’m of the opinion that Yiddish is just German with bad spelling.

  10. If they could only photoshop out the rest of the people in there too it would show the perfect government.

  11. It would be easier to photoshop a burqa on the ladies.

  12. White people like this story.

    This ain’t German, y’all, it’s Yiddish.

    Onto something.

  13. Unpersoned.

  14. Religion: Always fucked up and retarded.

    1. Yep. For the fundamentalists, it seems like they prefer to cover their women than demand that their men control their primal urges.

      And that says something about the morality of those “religious” men.

    2. You can get the same stuff with atheism. A century ago, it was illegal to sell things in Bergen County, NJ on a Sunday, because the majority wanted to enforce the Christian Sabbath on the population. Today, it is illegal to sell things in Bergen County, NJ on a Sunday, because the majority of people don’t like cars driving on a Sunday. When you get rid of religion, people just find new reasons to do the same old stuff.

      1. Actually, In Bergen County, the BLUE LAW also cripples orthodox businesses as they don’t open on saturday and are not allowed to open on Sunday. This is no co-inkidence.

        1. Good point, Alice.

  15. Alternate theory: American newspapers photoshopped Clinton and Tomason in, the better to comply with their internal gender inclusion mandates.

  16. Alternate theory: American newspapers photoshopped Clinton and Tomason in, the better to comply with their internal gender inclusion mandates.

  17. Has anybody else here ever blown their load at photoshopped images of Hillary taking Barry Obama’s cockasaurus up the tailpipe?

    1. …or faked Brazillian fart-porn starring Michelle Obama and Rachel Maddow?

    2. *blinks*

      Reason turned into /b/ so gradually I didn’t even notice.

      1. It was mostly my fault.

      2. The brazillian fart-porn I saw was entitled “Rachel and Her Amazonian Love-Goddess Ooga-booga Obama and the Orgasmic Smell of Flatulence.” It was quite arty.

  18. Why would this bother libertarians. Or does it? Doesn’t bother me. Private paper can print whatever they want, dumb or otherwise. Let them have their little space of no women in papers if it makes them happy. If it doesn’t, let their own community deal with it.
    Who gives a flying fuck.

    1. It’s just Hit and Run, not Libertarian Policy Review Quarterly. Is there not room for the occasional pointing and laughing?

      1. I guess but why are laughing at people that choose their own way to live? isn’t that what we want for ourselves?

        1. [W]hy are laughing at people that choose their own way to live? Because the way they live is stupid.

        2. Sure, you can choose your own way to live, and the rest of us can choose to point and laugh at it.

          As long there’s no government coersion involved, so what?

          1. You are correct sir. Just tired of seeing this photo is all(the non vulva one), and figured Reason wouldn’t waste time on it.

            Guy at Nightclub: You look like a clown in that stupid jacket.

            Sailor: This is a snakeskin jacket! And for me it’s a symbol of my individuality, and my belief… in personal freedom.

            Guy at Nightclub: Asshole.

            1. Suggest you pay more heed to unsolicited advice from nightclub patrons, H&R commenters, et als.

              1. fuck off with your advice. in a friendly way.

        3. “I guess, but…”

          In other words, “no.”

          1. In other words, yes, but explain why. It was explained. End of interest.

        4. No, I don’t want people to feel they can’t criticize my actions. That’s how you wind up with Obama’s idiotic policies or Trump’s awful hair.

    2. They are free to print what they want, and we are free to criticize them for it. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

      …and of course, there is the small issue of dishonesty when one publishes a doctored picture as if it’s authentic.

    3. Well said, Sailor.

  19. At least Muslims only forbid portraying one guy rather than half the human population.

    But of course the neocons will continue to rail against conservative Muslims for being so backwards and unenlightened while they lick the Hasidim’s boots for being such great allies.

    1. My understanding is that strict muslims avoid depictions of any living thing based on the mosaic commandment against graven images and idolatry. Thus, their art is limited to calligraphy, architecture, etc.

    2. You can’t help yourself when Jews and Muslims are involved, can you.

      The sect of Hasidim involved don’t believe that Israel should exist and actually supported the PLO.


      1. I am interested in your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    3. Tulpa, you are a ranting bigot. The Muslims extremists threatened violence against others for drawing Mohammed. That is why South Park did not show Mohammed and why Molly Norris is now in hiding. These Hasidic Jews are practicing their own set of rules without imposing it on others. There is a huge difference.

  20. At least Muslims only forbid portraying one guy rather than half the human population.

    Well, your fundamentalist types prohibit portraying half the population, unless you count “being photographed in shapeless, head-to-toe black burlap bag” as being portrayed.

  21. Meh.

    Saw this on Drudge. It is a non-issue.

  22. I am fairly certain that tampering with Government-released content, whether it be propaganda or not, constitutes treason.

    1. The family!

  23. What makes me wonder is why the White House would pick it this photo as the only official picture released when it shows Obama sitting in the corner looking like the pizza delivery guy who was invited in to watch the last 10 minutes of the superbowl because people felt sorry for him.

    Couldn’t they find a picture that makes him look in charge?

  24. If I were Hillary Clinton, this would make my day.

  25. Suggestive? But she even made the effort to cover one of her orifices!

  26. I don’t want to buy a newspaper that removes women from its photographs, but I don’t think this action is categorically different from when a main stream newspapers puts a black rectangle over a woman’s bare nipples. It’s just a matter of degree.

    Besides, “erotic” is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe a large portion of there readership would get an erection from looking at the fully clothed Clinton.

  27. Di Tzeitung already printed an apology for altering the photograph before Reason published this post. Reason is usually great on researching a story, but this disappoints me. How difficult would it have been to check the Di Tzeitung website before publishing this post?

    May 9, ’11

    The White House released a picture showing the President following “live” events of the apprehension of Osama Bin Laden, last week Sunday. Also present in the Situation Room were various high-ranking government and military officials including Secretary of State, the honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton and another female participant.
    Our photo editor realizing the significance of this historic moment, published the picture, but in his haste, did not read the “fine print” that accompanied the picture, forbidding any changes and published a picture omitting the female participants in the room.
    Because we wanted to honor the President and our armed forces for the historic significance of the moment, we opted to publish the photo, but without the women included, as is our long standing editorial policy. As a fact, Secretary of State Clinton WAS mentioned prominently in the main write-up of the Situation Room, right after President Obama.
    Our editorial policies are guided by a Rabbinical Board and because of laws of modesty, does not allow for the publishing of photos of women. The readership of the Tzeitung believe that women should be appreciated for who they are and what they do, not for what they look like, and the Jewish laws of modesty are an expression of respect for women, not the opposite.
    The allegations by some, that Orthodox Judaism denigrates women or do not respect women in public office,is a malicious slander and libel. The Jewish religion does not allow for discrimination based or gender, race, etc.
    The current Secretary of State, the Honorable Hillary R. Clinton, was for eight years, a Senator representing New York State with great distinction. She won overwhelming majorities in the Orthodox Jewish communities in her initial campaign in ’00, and when she was re-elected in ’06 it was because the religious community, among others, appreciated her unique capabilities, talents and compassion for all.
    We respect all government officials. We even have special prayers for the welfare of our Government and the government leaders.
    In retrospect, we apologize for any misunderstanding that this might have caused. 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.

  28. “The readership of the Tzeitung believe that women should be appreciated for who they are and what they do, not for what they look like…”

    Someone explain to me how this means, women cannot be photographed while men can be photographed.

    1. Crazyfish, in the eyes of the Tzeitung staff and readership, a picture of Hillary Clinton would distract the reader from thinking about a her accomplishments. It’s kind of how stripper patrons rarely notice a stripper’s ability to time his moves with the music so well. I’ve stripped online plenty, and my viewers tend to compliment me on my anatomy more than on my acting.

      Even Western papers cover women’s nipples in their photographs. In Middle Eastern cultures, a woman’s hair is considered erotic. That’s why married Orthodox Jewish women and observant Muslim women cover their hair. Tzeitung takes this idea a few steps farther, but the difference is just a matter of degree.

      1. Well stripping, you obviously there to titillate men. But a menopausal woman looking bored in company of grotty old men discussing how to take over the world? You really can’t compare that to stripping.

        If men are afraid of old women’s faces then the same insane argument applies for removing men’s faces, after all desperate virgins will be more concerned with the symmetry of the beards than the news itself. But of course, they never did bother with that argument because a woman don’t have sex drives or they do not read the paper… How convenient. This is not a matter of degree, it is just plain old patriarchal poppycock.

        1. Actually, in Orthodox Judaism, men are the baby machines. Judaism teaches that the commandment to be fruitful and multiply applies to Jewish men, but not Jewish women. The wife can always decline a husband’s advances, but the husband is commanded to give into any advances his wife makes. It’s one reason I got divorced. I couldn’t keep up with my ex-wife’s enthusiasm. She graduated with a Women’s Studies major from Rutgers University, so I can assure you that she was independent and feminist.

          Western Culture misinterpreted the commandment to be fruitful and multiply by applying it to women as well as men. This lead to the patriarchal problems you referred to. Crazyfish, do a little research first before projecting your Western belief system on other cultures and denouncing them for things they didn’t do.

          1. Well my quaint western belief system calls a spade a spade. Rules that treat men and women differently when matters of biology are not involved are by very definition sexist. Rules that so plainly benefit men rather women are patriarchal. Yes, a rule that removes pictures of women from newspapers benefit men only. You might as well remove from women from public spaces just so that childish men are not inconvenienced by the thought of having to restrain their rabid sexual urges.

    2. It means that they think women are nothing but baby machines and that it would confuse their men if they saw women doing anything else.

      1. West Texas, see my above rebuttal (5.11.11 9:18 am) to Crazyfish’s comment.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.