Paris – A Haredi newspaper removed the image of German Prime Minister Angela Merkel and the Prime Minister of Denmark Helle Thorning-Schmidt from a picture of global leaders marching in Paris.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
The women were both taken out of the photograph but Netanyahu remained.
The newspaper, called “HaMvaser,” is published by MK Meir Porush of United Torah Judaism. It reworked the image to remove the women in following with Haredi spiritual rules that ban publishing pictures of women, since it considers the female body to be immodest.
Some Haredi newspapers also refrain from publishing the names of women.
Israels Walla! news (http://bit.ly/1xUZd5a) was first to report on this.
The Original unedited photo bellow:
Yes we did. Take it in your tick head. We don’t publish pic of women.
Idiots
That’s just so….religious[ly stupid]…I could just plotz I’m so proud to be a Yid and have HaMvaser represent me before the world. Oy!
Why didn’t they also remove the image of Abbas. That doesn’t bother them?
Please do not inflame sensitivities via misinterpreting stated positions. No one says that the female body is “immodest”, nor that the female leaders edited out of the picture were in any way “immodestly” dressed.The paper is rather being wholly consistent with its stated editorial policy, not unlike any other publication that has its own proclivities. It is published for an audience that expects such fealty to its halachic standards – it is their right to exercise that choice. Did Walla report about the reportage in Riyahd or Teheran?
sad
The shonda is that the rasha Abbas was left in.
How about just not including any pictures at all, unless this was done just in order to get attention?
Just for the record – that wasn’t the PM of Denmark, it was the Mayor of Paris.
If they would have left in the figures and just blotted out the face, I would have said that they are consistent with their “belief”.
But to remove the bodies and close up the ranks to make it look like they weren’t even there to begin with, is just insane.
They are entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.
it reminds me the photo of Hillary Clinton was removed at White House Situation Room during the raid on Osama …
I hope these newspapers will come out against military assistance approved by Merkel 3 new Saar corvettes and all the money Israel is getting for those listed by Yad Vashem a place chareidis don’t set a foot, hypocrites
Now I see the reason why everyone is against it is because thay don’t post what other people write
Every publication needs to cater to the sensitivities of it’s readership.
If a Newspaper has a standard policy of not printing pictures of females, then so be it.
It shouldn’t bother anybody (except people that get annoyed because somebody dared to present themselves as more Frum).
True, it may be a radical Chumrah, but who cares?! It’s not personal.
I, for one, find it refreshing that there are still some old-fashioned prudes (“Chnyuks”) in this world.
p.s.
I do however agree that it would have been more sensible to just blur the images of the females.
Nebech, how these people pervert Yiddishkeit!
Not printing the picture would have been a valid exercise of editorial discretion. Altering it without acknowledging that it has been doctored is journalistic terrorism.
There is no problem to publish photos of only men, if that is your policy. But to remove the women who are in the photo is dishonest. It is a lie. That is a problem. When Hamodia took out the photo of Hillary Clinton when they were in the situation room during the capture of Osama Bin Laden, it was awful. If your policy is no women, fine. But you cannot doctor the photo to remove them. Publish a different photo or leave the photo out. To blot the women out is a lot of nerve.
This article already has 25 posts, yet hardly any of you think to post condolences formthe Paris vidtims and their families. Shame on you!!!
As usual, men who don’t know how to learn envy and resent those who do. As simple as that.
Who says Muslims have a monopoly on extremism. This show we Jews have our own.
I think they removed Obama from the picture also as I don’t see him either. As the Daily News so eloquently put it “Obama you let us down”
The Hamevasers policy is quite understandable, however what’s quite difficult to understand is which male on their staff does the actual editing out of the women, assuming that the Hamevaser can’t have any female employees?! Unless they have some way of editing it out without their male employee editor actually seeing the original photo which can be quite a feat! Till he edits it out the Hamevaser with all due respect is subjecting him to what they don’t want to subject their general readers to which is a double standard!
is that what yiddishkeit is all about, not printing pictures of woman…how vague and primitive…is this what yiddishkeit is all about….grow up!!! its a chilul hashem to remove a fact, to remove a woman from a picture is a chilul hahshem…
Boycott all frum magazines that will not print picture of women. Don’t be a self hating woman.
yawn, Mavasser has been rewriting news to fit how they believe frum people should see it. So to edit a photo so frum people should see it the way Mavasser thinks frum people should see it is not a big step…
BTW, does anyone read it any more?
Big deal! People who read this fish wrap know there are women leaders. They also know the paper won’t print pictures of women.
GOOD FOR THEM!!!
Fanatics! How are these uber-religious freaks any better than those of ISIS when everything they do or touch denigrates women? Move back to the 16th century if you want to live your life that way. So sickening.
I don’t have a real problem with the paper’s policy. If their policy is to not show pictures of women, then so be it — I can either accept it or vote with my dollars (shekels) and not buy it.
What troubles me far more is the fact that they published an altered version of the picture. This speaks to their journalistic ethics. If they’re going to edit a photo, then I’m sure they would have no compunctions about editing other things as well. In other words, I don’t think I can believe anything that they print, since they’ve so blatantly advertised the fact that they’re willing to edit the news to fit their theological worldview.
A perfectly acceptable alternative – which would have allowed them to stay true to their policy AND maintain their journalistic ethics, would have been to simply not publish a picture at all. It’s a real shame that they decided not to do that.
The Wolf
I actually have spoken to many women who enjoy frum magazines but are frustrated that they never see pictures of the interesting women interviewed. I say no more. Ladies, boycott these magazines until we can have at least one magazine that doesn’t treat us as pritzus.