Hillary Clinton, Der Tzitung and Erasing History

Where in the world is Hillary Clinton? I'm not talking about her current location, as the 67th U.S. Secretary of State is known for trips around the world. I'm talking about trying to do a Where's Waldo on the iconic photo of Clinton sitting around a conference table in the White House Situation Room as she, President Barack Obama and the national security team watch CIA director Leon Panetta narrate the notorious raid on Osama bin Laden's compound. You could cut the tension in the air with a cheap plastic knife. Just read the body language: grim and nervous facial expressions, crossed arms, hunched shoulders.

In the photo, released on the official White House Flickr page (I love how they have a Flickr page), I spy with my little eye Clinton with her left hand resting on a pen, binder and notebook sitting in her lap and her right hand loosely covering her mouth. Her eyes are wide. Some report you can see 10 years of tension, heartache and anger in her face. Oh, the drama! Others report she was just covering a cough. Whatever the case, it's an iconic photo of an iconic event, 10 years in the making. A photo that will always be associated with the capture and death of Osama bin Laden.

The U.S. leaders are huddled in a small room, watching it all go down, and the photo captures the fly-on-the-wall view of their reactions. You can sense the drama, the nervousness and know that, when all was said and done and an eye for thousands of eyes was had, there was some damn celebration!

Now, try and check out this same photo on page 56 of the May 6, 2011 edition of Ultra-Orthodox Hasidic broadsheet Der Tzitung, published in Brooklyn, and this is one f-ing hard Where's Waldo. It's not hard, it's impossible because the paper photoshopped Clinton, as well as the only other woman in the photo, Audrey Tomason (shortie peeking from the back right corner), out of the frame and out of history. Also of note is the editors ignored or perhaps missed the guidelines on the official White House Flickr page, where the photo was released for use by news organizations. "The photograph may not be manipulated in any way."

So, what was Der Tzitung's reasoning, you ask? The paper apologized to the White House for their infraction, and released this comment, "In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status ...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."

OK. They are ultra conservation and, in turn, ultra modest. They are not allowed to publish pictures of women because it could be seen as "sexually suggestive" (wow Hillary Clinton and "sexually suggestive" in the same thought! Somewhere Slick Willie is laughing.). I understand their beliefs. Although I may not fully agree with it, or anything in this upside-down world for that matter, I understand people and groups are allowed to think and believe what they want. Who am I to judge? Go for it girl, if that's what helps you sleep at night and make your world go round.

However, that's where my understanding ends. As far as not publishing photos of women, that's not offensive to me or my womanly parts.

Manipulating news photos is completely offensive.

I find manipulating photos -- whether it be Cameron Diaz on the cover of the current issue of Cosmopolitan magazine (where she has gone from her real-life mannish meat gristle body and face in undoctored photos to looking like a total smooth faced, unbodybuilder-esque hottie -- cracker please, you ain't gots to lie. Please let impressionable youth [and impressionable older women] know she's fugly.) or simply photoshopping anything out of photos, whether it be Hillary Clinton's presence or the coffee cup sitting on the conference table -- manipulating photos is wrong when it comes to publishing. If you want to cut out a photo of Eric Bana and his wife, Rebecca Gleeson, and paste your big face over hers, go right ahead. Pin it up on your bedroom wall and daydream of your passionate life together down under until you pass out or throw up! I don't care. However, when you are publishing photos (news publishing is recording history), especially of historical events, don't fuck with history. Please don't do it. It is wrong and it is a dangerous road to go down. So, just turn around now. Danger Will Robinson, danger!

Pretend for a moment someone from the paper actually reads my ridiculous blog. Sigh.

Dear Der Tzitung,

I understand your paper does not print pictures with women. Fine, don't print them. End of story. No harm done to my XX chromosomes. But, don't change history by photoshopping people (especially U.S. leaders) out of pictures and printing those fake pictures as NEWS because that is lying and didn't your mama ever tell you lying is wrong? Guess not.

Hugs and kisses!

Yours truly, 

Kate

When researching past events and times, one of the best tools is newspapers. It is one of the best ways for people who were not there to know what happened. Journalists are skewed enough in their slanted writing (another rant for another day) so please don't start messing with photos too. I'm scared enough for our future as it is.