- This topic has 279 replies, 49 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Can someone please explain why doctoring a photograph, with no statement that it was doctored, would not violate lifnei iver? It made it look like Sec. Clinton wasn’t there!
“Rav Nebenzhal of the Old City of Jerusalem holds that on an airplane one should daven in his seat instead of standing in the back of the isle as part of a minyan”
Every rabbi I’ve ever heard discuss this issue agrees. But for some reason we insist on violating air safety rules.
No, they would not delete the photo, they would just use photos that do not show her. Like, a photo of the limo pulling into the driveway of a hotel, or a panorama shot of the auditorium from 1000 feet back.
But the funniest “photoshop” photo was one taken when she was First Lady, and she was photographed with 2 mashgichim in the White House. When the charedi press printed the photo, they edited her out of the shot, but failed to edit her out of the aluminum foil reflection.
Blurry, but most definitley there. Oops!
“They apologized anyway so why all this ????????”
The problem is that the only true atonement would be to publish the original photograph, undoctored.
Web site of the person who took the photograph:
Why hasn’t anyone bothered to ask him what he thought of the doctoring of the photograph. (Hint to YWN — this is an opportunity for a scoop if you can somehow manage an interview!)
The damage that can be caused by faked photographs is enormous. Back in 1950, a doctored photograph purported to show Sen. Millard Tydings meeting with the notorious US Communist leader Earl Browder. The idea was proposterous, as Tydings was a true believer right winger (he had opposed FDR’s New Deal), but as he had spoken out against Joe McCarthy’s motzi shem ra he became a target. Tydings lost his election campaign that fall. (Note — Tydings had been one of the first members of the US Congress to publicly condemn the Nazi regime, in January 1934.)
And just last week we had also been “treated” to a fake photograph what purported to be Osama bin Laden’s corpse, an image that isn’t going to help preserve the lives of Americans serving overseas.
Earlier, George Bush and Sarah Palin had been the victims of photofakery.
That allegedly frum Jews would participate in doctoring photographs is a shandah!
“The problem is that the only true atonement would be to publish the original photograph, undoctored.”
I strongly disagree. The newspaper has every right to maintain their religious values, even if others think they are crazy. It is called “freedom of religion” — they have no obligation to print the picture. Their mistake was that if a picture didn’t meet their standards, they should not have published it, rather than publishing an edited version. Had there been no picture published, there would be no problem.
I fail to understand your logic that atonement for this requires them to give up on their principles. I would say their apology was pretty well expressed, and perhaps could be made stronger by expressing a commitment to refrain from doctoring photos in the future, and simply choosing to use those pictures which meet their standards in their original form.
DY
Read it again.
I wasn’t saying the picture was classified, I was comparing it to that category of documents that has special restrictions as per the government, and cannot be compared, as Pacman suggests, so readily with a standard copyright.
But the funniest “photoshop” photo was one taken when she was First Lady, and she was photographed with 2 mashgichim in the White House. When the charedi press printed the photo, they edited her out of the shot, but failed to edit her out of the aluminum foil reflection.
Actually, that was Laura Bush.
The Wolf
Who cares? All their readers know that women are cut out from photos and appreciate it. This is one of the reasons why we buy frum newspapers.
But the people don’t know that Hillary Clinton was there when she, in fact was.
The newspaper had three options that would have been ethical in terms of journalism:
1. Run the photo as is.
2. Not run the photo at all.
3. Alter the photo and include a caption stating that Hillary Clinton and a staffer were there but were removed by the newspaper out of modesty concerns.
Any of those three options would have been acceptable. The newspaper decided to take none of them and instead make their readership believe that no women were present at all. That is simply wrong — it’s a falsification of fact, something that is supposed to be taboo in the newspaper world.
But yeah, I know what you or others will say… I’ve been corrupted by tumahdik American values. How dare I question the holy actions of the newspaper, right? What would a kofer like me know about things like tznius, kedushah and taharah? So, fine… I’m a horrible kofer who doesn’t realize that tznius trumps journalistic standards.
The Wolf
Charlie – ” with no statement that it was doctored, would not violate lifnei iver”
Or for this matter Genevas Daas or any other Issur.
The reason is because the people who buy and read this paper expect the photos of all women to be removed. This is a given to them. The MO like you aren’t the supporters of this newspaper.
BTW, all the thousands of comments on the web comparing Chassidim to the Muslim fanatics is simply due to their guilt. These people have left their religion whether they are goyim or yidden and they are constantly looking for excuses. These people haven’t learned from history, any civilzation based on hedonism doesn’t exsist anymore. In the last thirty -forty years we’ve had the gay revolution, legalizing abortions and so on. We’ve also had terror attacks from muslims and the worst downturn of the economy since the depression. The non-religious want to blame this on anybody they can. They can’t put 2 & 2 together -maybe Hashem isn’t happy with a totally lustful, amoral society.
Why hasn’t anyone bothered to ask him what he thought of the doctoring of the photograph. (Hint to YWN — this is an opportunity for a scoop if you can somehow manage an interview!)
Charlie, why do you introduce such logic, reason & sanity to this thread? We were having a perfectly good argument based on assumptions, bias & putting words into other people’s mouths.
thanks mods
you didn’t need to put that through. or this one. just saying thanksss
hope I entertain you guys…
Wolf -“The newspaper decided to take none of them and instead make their readership believe that no women were present at all.”
This is your underlying mistake. Their readership makes no such assumption. The only assumption that they do make is that if women are present in the photos, they will be removed. It doesn’t matter what the political or social status of that woman is. Don’t put your assumptions that you have when you look at media on them!
I wasn’t saying the picture was classified, I was comparing it to that category of documents that has special restrictions as per the government, and cannot be compared, as Pacman suggests, so readily with a standard copyright.
Why should it be compared with classified documents?
To those who suggest that this was a violation of lifnei iver or g’neivas daas or any other issur, I suggest that you either learn through those sugyas (or, in regular English, research those topics), or speak to a talmid chacham who has before making such a pronouncement.
It was a violation of common sense, but nothing else.
To suggest that the publication was trying to mislead anyone to believe that Mrs. Clinton wasn’t present is foolish. Their readers know that no pictures of women are ever shown, and those who don’t normally read that newspaper know that she was there, having seen the original photograph!
Health – when a paper is published and sold at newstands it is for the public. It does target a reading group but anyone can look at it and draw any conclusion thet want. The readers may know that any women have been reomved but that would hardly be the point.
Being that the paper is a public paper avaiable to anyone the disclaimer is needed to justify what to someone may be ignorance/stupidity/uncaring/altering facts the list goes on and on.
This is your underlying mistake. Their readership makes no such assumption. The only assumption that they do make is that if women are present in the photos, they will be removed. It doesn’t matter what the political or social status of that woman is. Don’t put your assumptions that you have when you look at media on them!
Do you think the average reader will see the photo and think “there was a woman there but the paper removed her?” Or do you think the average reader will take the photo as a factual representation of what happened?
I think the latter is true.
If the former is true, then perhaps the newspaper is further violating tznius standards since men looking at every photo must be wondering “Was there a woman in that photo? If so, who was she?”
The Wolf
@thewolf – the colbert report did a very funny spoof on this last night regarding your exact point. it would be on his website
boredinoffice – “Health – when a paper is published and sold at newstands it is for the public. It does target a reading group but anyone can look at it and draw any conclusion thet want. The readers may know that any women have been reomved but that would hardly be the point.
Being that the paper is a public paper avaiable to anyone the disclaimer is needed to justify what to someone may be ignorance/stupidity/uncaring/altering facts the list goes on and on.”
Your argument would be correct if there were other readers. Like for example the NY times, some people have a subscription and some buy it occasionally. Here even the ones who buy it occasionally know what they do with all women. There is no logical reason for them to put any disclaimer on any photos.
A disclaimer is only needed if someone could be misled.
Anyone on this frum YWN blog ever bought this newspaper? I highly doubt it.
It was a violation of common sense, but nothing else.
It was a violation of journalistic standards. It was a violation of honesty. It was a violation of truth.
They could have not run the photo. They could have edited the photo and informed their readers that the photo was edited. They did neither. They violated far more than just “common sense.”
The Wolf
dy
because it was a government document/photo that had stipulations and limitations regarding its distribution attached to it.
“Actually, that was Laura Bush.”
Oops is right. Like I said, the reflection in the aluminum foil was blurry!
Wolf – “Do you think the average reader will see the photo and think “there was a woman there but the paper removed her?” Or do you think the average reader will take the photo as a factual representation of what happened?
I think the latter is true.
If the former is true, then perhaps the newspaper is further violating tznius standards since men looking at every photo must be wondering “Was there a woman in that photo? If so, who was she?”
The Wolf”
Wrong on both counts. Yes they make the assumption that there is the possibility of women in every photo. Since the readers do it with every photo, they don’t think twice like you say -“Was there a woman in that photo? If so, who was she?”
Again don’t put your assumptions on them.
Health,
I’m sorry… I just believe you’re wrong. I don’t believe the readers of Der Terztung (did I get that right?) make the assumption that women are removed from every picture. I believe that they are far more likely to see a picture and take it as an actual, accurate representation. Just MHO.
The Wolf
@thewolf – the colbert report did a very funny spoof on this last night regarding your exact point. it would be on his website
Heh. That’s exactly the point I was making! 🙂
The Wolf
Wolf – “It was a violation of journalistic standards. It was a violation of honesty. It was a violation of truth.”
Only in the world’s eye, not in their readerships’.
Also the double standard, when the mainstream media misleads the general public, eg. with the photo of the muslim man crouching behind a boy. The only outcry was from Jewish groups – I didn’t hear the world or the mainstream media decrying this propaganda.
y.p: There was no legal effect to the attached disclaimer. The law specifically and explicitly allows publishing a manipulated government photo. Read the Washington Post blog report of the Der Zeitung story. It also makes the point it was totally allowed and legal.
Common Sense: I have access to Internet in limited capacity. Yeshiva World News is not questionable. I am totally not interested in all the goyishe DISGUSTING websites!! We have enough Tzoros in Klal Yisroel and I’m not looking for more!
Deiyezooger: GIT GEZUKGT!!!
Wolf:: Correct spelling is Der Tzeitung!
who cares what they did to the picture. it is a small religious paper that i bet 99.9999 percent of the people on here never heard of or ever even seen a copy of it in any stores. how are they any different than 99 percent of the lying media we have out there whether it be print or thru the airwaves. in fact i would probably trust this publication more than i would the ny times, fox news or msnbc
Wolf:: Correct spelling is Der Tzeitung!
Thank you.
The Wolf
When a newspaper distorts photographs, it means they are changing the version of history. How can you trust anything they write?
What I want to know is if there is nothing wrong with altering women out of photographs, then why would it be a chillul Hashem when people find out?
how are they any different than 99 percent of the lying media we have out there whether it be print or thru the airwaves.
Even if what you say is true (and that’s far from given), that doesn’t change anything for two reasons:
1. Just because others do wrong is no reason to do wrong yourself.
2. We believe we are held to a higher standard. We must strive to live up to that higher standard.
The Wolf
It was a violation of journalistic standards. It was a violation of honesty. It was a violation of truth.
They could have not run the photo. They could have edited the photo and informed their readers that the photo was edited. They did neither. They violated far more than just “common sense.”
The Wolf
It was not a violation of truthfulness and honesty because the intent and effect was not to fool anyone. As far as journalistic standards, they are entitled to define that for themselves (although it was a mistake to do so the way they did it in this case.)
I fully agree that they could have and should have left the picture out. I’m not sure a disclaimer would have completely shielded them from criticism.
dy
because it was a government document/photo that had stipulations and limitations regarding its distribution attached to it.
Which might be perfectly legal to doctor; that’s what we’re discussing.
exactly, and it’s always better to yield to the side of caution, and since neither of us are patent lawyers, and I’ll assume pac-man isn’t either, none of us are entitled to draw definitive conclusions, as pac-man has done.
I’m glad we agree
Patents yid.period? What’s patents have anything to do with this discussion? This is a copyright issue, nothing to do with patents. And as reported in the Washington Post and elsewhere, it is clear and unambiguous Federal law that the U.S. Government works, including photographs, enjoy no protections.
Your argument would be correct if there were other readers. Like for example the NY times, some people have a subscription and some buy it occasionally. Here even the ones who buy it occasionally know what they do with all women. There is no logical reason for them to put any disclaimer on any photos.
A disclaimer is only needed if someone could be misled.
Anyone on this frum YWN blog ever bought this newspaper? I highly doubt it.
How can you say that a newspaper being sold at newstands does nto have other readers. It is being sold to anyone who wants it. Does the newsman only sell it to chasidim??
I highly doubt that any of the loyal readers ran to the press over this story
As for your comment about YWN blog – the world is alot bigger then YWN blog (sorry YWN)
how are they any different than 99 percent of the lying media we have out there whether it be print or thru the airwaves.
@ getzel
media may give the interpertation of the facts the way they want to slant it. There was no question that Hillary Clinton was in the room
I posted bits and pieces of the rest of the article where they address how it was against the terms of distribution, but the mods didn’t let it through. (Please let me know what was wrong with the post please mods, so I know not to do it again)
And “Patent Lawyer” is the generic name for Lawyers that deal with issues such as copyrights and patents.
Way to go with the straw man argument though.
yid.period:
Read the Washington Post blog post about Der Zeitung issue from the “Correction” section. The relevant portion reads:
I guess we are looking at different articles because the article I looked at says no such thing. It’s by Brad Hirschfield.
y.p,
Anyone remembers the photo of Sarah Palin with the AK-47?
That was very respecting of women….
but there was no outcry of the copyrights of the origional picture owner, of course not, it was not a frum newspaper doing it.
dy and pacman
Obviously this is not so clear cut.
Again, I would challenge the first bloggers observation by asking him to explain classified documents.
deiyezooger
that’s a horse of another color. Only the gullible would believe the picture of Palin with the ak47 to be accurate and serious, however, the pic of the situation room did not seem/have intention to be like a joke/satirical in any way.
in any case, a blogger assertion quoted by a different blog is by no means a firm legal ruling on the matter.
y.p: It’s not merely a “blogger assertion”. It links to the U.S. Code (on the Cornell website) where the exact law is cited and spelled out verbatim.
Furthermore the WashPost author is accepting that fact and just noting who to credit as having pointed it out. And additionally, even if it is unclear as you would like to lead people to believe, you then cannot hold against someone for doing something you are unclear there is anything wrong with.
“And additionally, even if it is unclear as you would like to lead people to believe, you then cannot hold against someone for doing something you are unclear there is anything wrong with.”
Except if he is frum. That’s when all common sense, open-mindedness, ???? ?????, ????? ????, ????? ????? etc. etc. go out the window.
“The newspaper has every right to maintain their religious values”
Knowingly publishing deliberately doctored photographs is a religious value?
y.p,
The second reader, Don, was agreeing with what the first one said. This was in the category of the qualification “but…”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.