Politics

Where's Hillary?

The female unperson.

|

Shortly after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, the White House released a photo showing, per the official caption, "President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with members of the national security team, receiv[ing] an update on the mission" in the Situation Room. The picture ran in many publications, including the Brooklyn-based Hasidic newspaper Di Tzeitung. But Di Tzeitung's version was missing two of the 13 officials: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Director for Counterterrorism Audrey Tomason. The gender-selective airbrushing, first reported by the website Failed Messiah, provoked widespread ridicule and charges of sexism.

In response, Di Tzeitung's editors argued that their critics had things backward. "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," they explained in a press release. "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 editors did apologize for missing the fine print accompanying the photo, which said it "may not be manipulated in any way." 

Credit: White House
Credit:Di Tzeitung

NEXT: Reason Writers on Freedom Watch: Matt Welch Talks Debt Ceiling Politics Last Week, Food Trucks Today

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. SEXIST!!

    1. I believe you meant to say STALINIST!

  2. “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.”

    I hear black people had it better when they were slaves too.

    1. Dude, true story. I read it in some FAMiLY magazine…

  3. Why are you making me feel empathy for Hillary Clinton. That’s totally not cool.

  4. IIRC, a few rabbis did take Di Tzeitung to task on the grounds that respect for truth and historical accuracy is also a Jewish value, and if the photograph is offensive, the proper thing to do is not run it, rather than editing it to say something it didn’t.

  5. “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,” they explained in a press release.

    I woould hate to see their adds for sunscreen…

  6. Why don’t they respect men then?

    1. In Middle Eastern cultures, men are supposed to be sexy. They keep their hair uncovered, sing in public, and sport those long beards.

  7. Old news is old.

  8. Apparently, they ran a photo of the royal wedding:

    http://www.shirchadashnola.org…..-tzeitung/

  9. Paging MNG…

      1. HEY! That’s my line!

  10. Typical intellectual dishonesty on the part of religious groups. OK, so their primitive supersitions prohibit them from running pics of females. Fine. But they could have chosen the moral high ground and not run the picture at all.

    Having said that, I believe they were within their rights to alter the photo. But intellectual honesty would also require them to include a disclaimer in the caption that the photo had been altered – preferably explicity, ie “this photo has been altered to remove images of Secretary of State Hilary…”. Not that I’d expect that of them.

    1. OK, so their primitive supersitions prohibit them from running pics of females.

      They really need to get with the times and adopt more modern superstitions.

  11. An easier way to shop Hilary out of there would have been to stick a picture of Muhammad as terrorist over her mug. Wonder how they missed it.

  12. I wish you could manipulate shitheads like Hillary out of existence the same way you can with Photoshop

    1. …or at least airbrush and shop her until she’s fuckable!

  13. So a not-so-influential publication thinks we’ll know the editors’ penus sizes if they show a broad. Who cares? This is so a non-story.

  14. Typically, the undead cannot be photographed or seen in a reflection.

  15. They could simply have blurred-out/blacked-out the women, which would have been easier (and more honest) than Photoshopping them out as if they’d never been there in the first place.

    1. Or they could’ve Photoshopped them into men.

      1. Wait you mean that the Hilster is not a man?!?!

  16. I was just hoping to be able to use unperson in a sentence.

  17. That photo was actually from Game of Thrones night.

  18. Who knew Hasidic Jews and the Chinese both could make girls disappear?

  19. WAIT!!!! Hilary Clinton is a woman???

    1. FOOL! DOES THIS RACK LOOK MALE?

      1. The First Black President says: “The shit is fine.”

      2. Definitely not male, but seriously non-symmetrical

  20. Once again, my theory is proved correct. There isn’t one iota of difference between the sidecurls and the ragheads and we chuck em all in a hefty sack, draw the string tight, and chuck em in a bin.

    1. Beer, your collectivism is not welcomed here.

  21. I don’t see this as a big deal, as long as the article text makes it clear that the women were present. After all, secular American publications will cover up female nipples with a black box while leaving male nipples in photographs.

    The original article was in Yiddish. Did you get it translated so you could read the text before blogging about it? The source you cited, Failed Messiah, has “Covering Orthodox Judaism Since 2004” as it’s tag line.

    Would Reason treat an article in an NYC Arabic publication the same way? Would you rely on a blog called “False Prophet: Covering Muslims Since 2004” as a source without translating the original Arabic article to see what it says?

    There is a chance for Reason to put its money where its mouth is. Publish an uncensored picture of bare chested women to prove that you support equality in the publication of women’s pictures.

  22. If you want, you can use the photograph of a bare chested woman in my article: http://www.intercourseandconce…..ights.htm.

    It’s a few centuries old, so I’m sure it’s public domain.

    1. Fix linky

  23. ….Who?

  24. I find it hard to feel offended because a photograph that was released purely for propaganda purposes was altered by a publication that ran it.

    Besides, wasn’t Obama’s entire reason for appointing Hillary to that position precisely to make her disappear?

  25. The thing that’s particularly bizarre about this is that the editors could have very easily just cropped the photo. Both women are on the righthand side of the picture, while Obama and Biden are on the lefthand side. Why not just crop everything to the right of the standing guy in the light blue shirt?

    1. Because they didn’t photoshop them out. The White House photoshopped them in to hide the fact that both women actually took part in the raid and it was actually Hillary that shot Osama Bin Loser.

  26. What are they going to do when she becomes president?

    1. President of what?

  27. Jesus F. Christ, why is this a story? The New York Times won’t publish the things I write, and yes, I’ve tried submitting opinion pieces to no avail. Thus, if I don’t have the right to get published, publications don’t to publish photos of women if they don’t want to.

    You people are acting like a bunch of Nazi censors. Shame on you!

  28. One more thing, where’s the outrage against Sports Illustrated for not having a swimmsuit calendar with men? Or what about Maxim and FHM? Again, no men! Even Playboy has no men. Yet one little Jewish publication written in a language you people can’t read draws all this controversy. Ridiculous.

  29. publishing of photos of women,” they explained in a press release.

  30. including the Brooklyn-based Hasidic newspaper Di Tzeitung. But Di Tzeitung’s version

  31. Thanks. Mantolama fiyatlar?, s?ve mantolama | | s?ve modelleri |

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.