The truth is that there is nothing new about this, other than the fact that the Washington Post picked it up. The ridiculous policy has been picked up and written about and criticized many a time.
The only thing different about it this time is as Israelity Bites points out that instead of just whiting out the faces or blurring the picture as they usually do, or instead of cropping them out of the picture, they did something different this time.
They replaced the women with pictures of other men. Not just random men, but they cut up the whol epicture and moved people around to fill the gaps. They filled the gaps created by the missing women, by moving Ariel Attias over to Limor Livnat's spot, and moved Moshe Kachlon to fill in for Sofa Landver. Obviously they then had to fill the spots created from moving Attias and Kachlon over. So while I do not see the whole pictuire, as it is cut off at the ends, they either moved other people over to fill in the gaps, or left the big gaps.
It seems like a journalistic ethical problem to doctor photos like that. Even if the policy of removing womens faces is justified, for argument's sake, white out the face or leave the space blank, but to then move people around? It seems pointless and ethically wrong. if they openly doctor photos like that for more than just "religious reasons" (i.e. removing Limor Livnat could be understood for religious reasons, but moving someone else over has no justification or need), who is to say any other picture displayed in the newspaper is reliable and not doctored?
During the Slifkin Pulmus, I called R Plaut, the editor of the English Bnei Brak Yated, and complained that some of their reporting was inaccurate. To which he replied "We don't believe in these kinds of journalistic standards." I then asked him whether they are obligated to report the truth or can they write outright lies. To this he replied "We're not really a newspaper, we're a mouthpiece for the Gedolim that we hold from"
ReplyDeleteI've commented on this before on my blog as I've caught Mishpacha in the practice.
ReplyDeleteWhile frankly they can do whatever they want with pictures, if they're not labeling it as such then they're engaged in a form of lying - midorisa.
Somehow I don't see how propagating falsehoods is permitted in the pursuit of a chumra. Guess they use a different Shulchan Aruch?
This is outrageous! I work for the UK Hamodia, and whilst we don't print pictures of women, we certainly don't do this! I have cropped photos to take the women out, or if i am taking a photo for something i will take one just of men. recently there was a jewish business awards ceremony in which one of the winners was a woman. she asked me if i was going to take a picture just of the men, to which i replied, "absolutely not - you are also a winner. we'll use a different picture completely, if we can't put you in,"
ReplyDeleteAt the very least, they should have a caption stating that the photo has been manipulated. The dishonesty about it bothers me more than the actual policy of not showing women's pictures in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe Wolf
I'm not sure who is who in the picture, but they shrunk the guy who replaces the lady standing on Bibi's right. He may not be so happy about losing those inches.
ReplyDeleteGezel Gova??
"gezel govah" - I like it...
ReplyDeleteI don't think they shrunk him though. I think they just placed him too low in the frame