Alteration in Hasidic paper causes uproar

According to some accounts that have appeared around the world, it seems as if Hillary Clinton had almost been removed from history by a Jewish publication that had chosen to cut her out out of a White House photo showing her along with other top administration officials watching the raid in Pakistan that killed the world’s infamous number one terrorist leader Osama bin Laden on May 1.

The Di Tzeitung publication that had cut out Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and counterterrorism director Audrey Tomason

In addition to Clinton being removed, the Brooklyn-based Hasidic newspaper Di Tzeitung also cut out counterterrorism director Audrey Tomason from the photograph that appeared on the cover of the front page. In its defense, the Di Tzeitung insisted that its religious beliefs prevent them from publishing any photos of women because it may put them in a sexually suggestive light.

“In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status,” the newspaper explained in a prepared statement.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

The original White House photo that pictures Hillary Clinton (second from right) and Audrey Tomason (sixth from right)

Although the initial problem arises in the fact that the publication had altered a photo that the White House had specifically forbade anyone from doing so, the issue at hand is much more greater than that. For any journalism ethicist, this incident seems to raise a very fundamental question: To what extent should religious beliefs should decisions be made in reporting the truth. Despite the fact that this particular incident involves the alteration of a photo for public consumption, the issue is still just as relevant. At issue are the protections inherently provided by the First Amendment — the very law that journalists have been staunchly fighting for over the past decade.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Although the law itself does provide for a free press, the issue is whether that same law can allow the exercise of religious practices to override journalistic integrity. In almost any photojournalism class, there will always be that lecture about photo alteration and the ethical repercussions of placing it in the paper. In Dan Morrison’s photojournalism class, he made this point very clear when he explained to us that almost any alternation made, including lightening or darkening a photo to make it more clear to audiences, is ethically wrong to place in a paper for publication, because it manipulates the true image and can therefore significantly damage the publication’s journalistic integrity. For those photojournalists that did manipulate images, the consequences have been severe — many were immediately fired by their respective publication or seemingly placed on a banned list in which they would be unable to find work at any legitimate publication.

What makes this particular incident particularly interesting is the fact that both freedoms have enjoyed a significant amount of protection over the years. So, for many ethicists, the question is whether one freedom should outweigh the other. In either case, there really is no compromise in this matter; there can only be one winner.

One man’s exploration into the heart of war

Photo courtesy of The Oregonian

In Jere Van Dyk‘s talk at the University of Oregon last week, he described his experiences in Iraq and even detailed the events leading up to his capture and his time spent in captivity. For many, it highlighted the real dangers that journalists face abroad when covering conflicts, especially in the wake of numerous kidnappings in Iraq, where a few have been killed. Although it can be easy to dismiss him as another American journalist who blindly went into the heart of a conflict to find a story, Van Dyk’s history with Iraq is a lot more extensive than that.

In fact, Van Dyk was very familiar with the country and had travelled through the country extensively, even before the Taliban became the poster-child of guerilla warfare and terrorism. For Van Dyk, Iraq became a second home for him, and always seemed to be calling him back after the first time that he visited Iraq while he was still in college. However, no matter how comfortable he felt in his surroundings, everything did not go the way he had expected it to.

Although he was aware of the customs, cultural practices, and some of the language, Van Dyk said that he felt nervous to be traveling into the rugged terrain where the Taliban were infamously known to control. In fact, Van Dyk said many of the people that he talked to refused to go with him, because they knew the dangers and risks associated with the journey. However, Van Dyk said he was well acquainted with some key Taliban members and knew that he would be taken care of while he was there.

But, even that did not prevent his capture, which was thrown into the limelight for the next several months following his kidnapping. However, Van Dyk seemed to paint a different picture of Al Qaeda that is different than the ones that are typically portrayed through the media — an image of an incensed group of people who will engage an aggressive form of warfare to eliminate the enemy at all costs. Apart from this image, Van Dyk explained that his cultural background in Iraq allowed him to interact with them on an equal basis to the point at which they would try to protect him and view him as a guest rather than an enemy.

Thus, audiences here are left with this interesting, yet unlikely dichotomous relationship of Al Qaeda members being brutal to their enemies, yet kind to those who respectful to those enemies as well. For example, if you compare Van Dyk’s case with that of former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was tortured and brutally murdered, the outcomes are very different even though the circumstances are similar, to a certain extent. Even Van Dyk does not completely understand why he was chosen to live instead of facing the same fate as Pearl; however, he did credit Pearl for saving the lives of future journalists, since most terrorists are unwilling to kill their hostages.

From what many journalists know now, much of the Middle East is a scary, unpredictable place, where the dangers are extremely high and the terrorist groups are relentless, but beyond that exterior, perhaps there is a certain part of humanity in it all that may be lost in the translation of war. And, perhaps what motivates journalists to take risks and place themselves in dangerous situations is not only the opportunity to advance their career, but a love for a place that may seem undesirable to others.