PetaPixel

Hillary Clinton Gets ‘Shopped Out of Iconic War Room Photo by Newspaper

Pete Souza’s iconic photo of Obama and his national security team in the Situation Room has become extremely well known in the span of a week, so it’s unlikely that any reputable media outlet would dare alter the photo in any way — but that’s exactly what one newspaper did. Orthodox Hasidic newspaper Der Tzitung has a policy of never publishing photographs of women, and decided to publish Obama’s situation room photograph with Hillary Clinton and counterterrorism director Audrey Tomason Photoshopped out of the frame.

The photograph was published to the White House Flickr stream with the line, “The photograph may not be manipulated in any way [...]“. After the story blew up across the Internet this past weekend, the newspaper released a statement apologizing for their actions:

In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status… Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret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.

You can find the rest of the statement over on the Washington Post.

(via Failed Messiah via Imaging Insider)


 
Get the hottest photo stories delivered to your inbox.
Get a daily digest of the latest headlines:
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Josh-Zytkiewicz/1305407149 Josh Zytkiewicz

    While the whole idea of not showing photographs of women is silly, wouldn’t it have been more journalistically ethical to just crop it? Other than Obama, Biden and Clinton does anybody even know or care who the other people in the room are?

  • stevemchey

    Here is my take on this issue: If your religion disallows showing a woman in a newspaper, fine, that’s your call. But don’t _alter_ an image to show something that is not reality. Crop the image if you need to, or don’t show it at all. That by itself /might/ not be disrespecting to women. However, retouching it, to not show Hillary and the lady in the back, is, as it diminishes their role in this historic moment.

  • Nandrews

    Why don’t men need to be “modest” what is the deference…? No really please explain…

  • jf

    it has nothing to do with posting images of women in my opinion. they altered the image. that’s a no-no unless the photographer/owner allows those rights.

  • Anonymous

    I doubt anyone here will be able to explain… It’s just stupid religious zealots.

  • http://www.BINKUpg.tk Binku.pg

    Thanks god, Hilary isn’t the president. If she was, those people wouldn’t not know who is president of America and a photo of her too.

  • Leibnitz

    Religion Poisons Everything.

  • http://twitter.com/w_z_a wza

    and what exactly is the religious problem with women on photographs again?

  • erik

    Try to explain that to a four year old.

  • rik

    i’m not an atheist, but you can take all the world’s different religions and SHOVE IT where the sun don’t shine. stupid. really stupid.

  • JD

    It seems you’re almost the definition of atheist – they are non-theists.

  • JD

    It’s a cracked law of modesty when a woman in a pant-suit isn’t allowed to be in a photo. How it’s not treating women as second class citizends, I wouldn’t know, that’s some special sauce of cognitive dissonance.

    But yeah, they could have avoided a lot of trouble with just a crop, the rest of the world would be none the wiser about their absurd treatment of women.

  • http://www.fotographix.ca Calgary Photographer

    Sexist. Pure and simple.

  • http://twitter.com/Basbeeky Bas ter Beek

    The image is not as iconic as you might think. The picture has been takes a few hours before operation Geranimo began. So they are watching some preparation or something, not the the actual operation

  • http://twitter.com/Basbeeky Bas ter Beek

    The image is not as iconic as you might think. The picture has been takes a few hours before operation Geranimo began. So they are watching some preparation or something, not the the actual operation

  • Robertsmellis

    Oh, I get it. Women should definitely not be seen…. and definitely not heard from. And why would that be the case?

  • http://www.facebook.com/rick020200 Rick Bennett

    “In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women,
    which in no way relegates them to a lower status”

    Complete bullshit. It absolutely relegates them to a lower status. Let me guess, the article didn’t say “Also present, but not pictured was Hillary Clinton…” By removing her from the picture they are saying she wasn’t important.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rick020200 Rick Bennett

    “In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women,
    which in no way relegates them to a lower status”

    Complete bullshit. It absolutely relegates them to a lower status. Let me guess, the article didn’t say “Also present, but not pictured was Hillary Clinton…” By removing her from the picture they are saying she wasn’t important.

  • Anonymous

    This article begs the question, what would the newspaper have done if Hilary Clinton had become President? If there was a media announcement with just her at a podium, would they Photoshop her out and just leave an empty podium in the photograph?

  • Kevin McCoy

    Despite the image’s line on flickr about not allowing modifications, from a copyright point-of-view, the image is in the public domain and those restrictions are just talk. 

    The ethics of the modification, of course, are a completely different matter.