Anti-Semitism accusation in 3… 2… 1…
If you can’t see the difference between a random poster joking that someone is ugly in a forum dedicated to hurling poo and a newspaper editing that person out of a photo of a profound recent event on the basis of her gender - you really need adjust the focus on your lens.
Hell, I’ll go one more:
No one in this thread has Clinton bashed, except for PRR. Who apologized. And, unlike the newspaper in question, he apologized for the thing that actually got people (well, a person, at any rate) offended. However, you’re still holding it over his head, while insisting that we accept the newspaper’s non-apology and forget about the whole thing. That looks to me like a big ol’ double standard. Am I wrong?
Someone’s got to laugh. Okay, I’ll take the hit for the team.
{{Laughs}}
Now who is the idiot? I said their policy was silly imho. But I didn’t see the purpose of having a coronary over a policy they’ve had for years and years. Some Hasidic newspapers in Israel do the same thing. They’re a minority group. Annoying? Sure. But relatively harmless here.
Women in that community have a degree of mobility. Most female Hasidim are there because they want to be. What’s it to you? 
Where are the threads on the 10,000 other publications that aren’t PC?
:dubious:
Are you that stupid? Where does the newspaper call the Secretary of State someone else? Or say she doesn’t’ exist? Are you really that dense to think that the Hasidim pretend that certain people don’t exist?!
The OP cited a newspaper that…cited the opinions of a Reconstructionist rabbi, mentioned an anti-Orthodox blog, and published speculations of another paper. Right. Classy journalism that reaches an audience far greater than the Brooklyn Hasidim. Talk about misleading.
also, it’s Di, not Der.
Who reasonably expects the paper to apologize for their religious beliefs? Shall we start a tirade against all private organizations that don’t mesh with your views?
:rolleyes:
We don’t. We’re asking them to apologize for altering the photo. Actions, not beliefs.
So you want them to apologize for their policy of omitting women from photos?
They apologized for printing it.
Shall we bash them for not delivering on Saturdays?
Considering that you think those six quoted posts serve as some sort of a rebuttal, although to what, I can’t imagine, I think the answer to your question is, “Still you.”
No is having a coronary over this, except you.
I have no idea what you think this is a response to. No one has suggested that the Hasidim are keeping women in their religion against their will.
Are you seriously under the impression that this is the only publication, in the history of the Pit as a public forum, to be criticized for their news coverage?
That has, historically, been precisely the purpose behind removing people from pictures of historic events. Was this the motive in this particular case? Not necessarily, but I am very curious to know to what extent Clinton’s role in the operation has been emphasized or de-emphasized by this paper. Considering their policy of dishonestly manipulating the news they report to make it appear that women weren’t present, I’m not prepared to take this paper’s word for how they treat women in their own publication.
What, specifically, has been misleading in the coverage of this story?
Eventually, yes.
What does this have to do with anything? Are you on drugs? *
*Bonus points if you answer “No, I just want a Pepsi”.
You really have a great deal of trouble understanding what people are saying. I suspect the problem is that you’re an idiot, but maybe you just struggle with figures of speech. I did not say they said Clinton wasn’t the Secretary of State. There’s nothing close to that in my post. I said they pretended she didn’t exist. When the paper took her out of the picture, they told their readers that she was not in that room when she was. She was a major player in the effort to get bin Laden, and they suggested she wasn’t important enough to be in the room while it was going down. They did that because she’s a woman and they didn’t want to run her picture. Do you still not get this?
I was wondering about that.
It’s not just Clinton who was taken out of the photo, by the way. There were two women in the room. The other was counterterrorism director Audrey Tomason. She’s a little easier to miss, but she’s on the right side of the photo, peeking between two guys. Again, she’s the director of counterterrorism, and the paper said she wasn’t there.
Where did I say I expected them to apologize? I said they ought to apologize, but that’s not the same thing at all.
I also, for the record, think that the American Family Association ought to apologize for being gigantic homophobes. I think the British National Front ought to apologize for being racist fuckholes. I think the Fox network ought to apologize for canceling Firefly. I don’t expect any of that to happen any time soon, but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t happen at all.
Considering that this is the BBQ Pit, and that’s one of the explicit purposes of the forum, sure, let’s do that.
Wow, you only had to hear that, what, fifteen times before you figured it out?
No one cares about that.
No, because not delivering on Saturdays isn’t sexist and insulting practice. Since you seem to have missed it, the point of this pitting is not, “This newspaper is run by a bunch of Jews!” The point of this pitting is, “This newspaper is run by a bunch of sexists!” The fact that they couch their sexism in appeals to their Judaism is neither relevant, nor exculpatory.
Of course not.
Hell, I’d like to know what her role was. Nearly every mainstream article that has been on the subject talks about President Obama.
It’s a private paper. Much like the zillion other religious publications. Hasidim is NOT my thing. I’ve seen Jewish communities in NYC, but I’m not about to head to Brooklyn for a bagel. It’s their thing. So what? What do I care? They’re not advocating for other publishers to do so. They have their space. Let them do what they want. If a woman in the community isn’t bothered by it, is she a misogynist?
The article cited in the OP quoted a rabbi who is outside of majority Judaism who has a thing against the Orthodox community (and passes himself off as a Conservative rabbi when he’s not). The article ‘speculated’ on the ‘reasons’ why the paper had that policy. It mentioned an anti Orthodox blog. It had no quote from the paper. It was SHITTY reporting.
Sorry if I don’t get my panties in a bunch everytime I read the blogosphere. Or the Sydney Herald, for that matter.
No. Maybe you have problems in expressing yourself.
Saying, “Pretending she doesn’t exist” is not the same as “pretending she wasn’t in the room at that time”.
I get you don’t like their policy or their interpretation of religious law (which isn’t flush with mine, but again, it’s not mainstream press and I’m fine with other people’s religions)
I have no idea the extent of the role that Secretary of State Clinton played. It could have been more or less pivotal than the other woman removed.
I heard more about President Obama and his intel staff (whatever the Director of Intelligence’s name is…)
Nobody said they’re legally required to do anything.
OK, you don’t give a shit. So go post about something else. There’s really no defense for what they did, and it’s a stupid move on your part to get outraged on their behalf.
The problem is definitely on your end. This thread is my cite. 
As far as that moment in time, yes, they pretended she didn’t exist there.
I’m sure you don’t. I don’t know any specifics, but given that she’s the freaking Secretary of State, she was most certainly involved. And since she was in the room, her participation was obviously rather important. By changing the photo, the paper misrepresented the record and downplayed Clinton and Tomason in general and downplayed their roles in this raid and with the administration. “Don’t make shit up” is basic journalism.
Outraged? No. But I am annoyed at the comments about Clinton and Meir. I do think that before you go into cahoots about some ‘dishonest reporting’, you should maybe check your sources…maybe wait to see the whole story…but hey. I just read with a critical eye.
as you were
And you can state this as a certain fact because…
I don’t think anyone was under the impression that it was a state-run news outlet, but thanks for clearing that up for us, just in case.
Nobody is suggesting that they be prevented from running their paper however they want. If they want to photoshop payot onto Barrack Obama, they have every right to do so. By that same token, everyone else has a right to call them out on their deceptive and misleading alterations to the news they claiming to report.
I don’t know. Maybe? Who gives a fuck? What’s the relevance of this question?
I’m not familiar with Rabbi Jason Miller. Apparently, you’re carting around a hefty grudge against him. Perhaps you can substantiate your own claims against the man? In what way is he “outside of majority Judaism?” What evidence can you give that he has a grudge against the Orthodox community? How has he “passed himself off” as a Conservative Rabbi, and in what ways does he fail to meet the standards for that position?
And, of course, the $25,000 question: what did he say in that article that was factually inaccurate?
This is manifestly untrue, as can be amply demonstrated by this very thread.
Bullshit.
You have yet to identify any factual inaccuracies in the article linked to in the OP.
Also bullshit.
And yet you’re arguing about the paper’s right to run the photos they want (which was never in dispute).
The word you meant to use here is not “cahoots,” and I don’t give a flying fuck about the blog or anybody’s take on Orthodox or Conservative Judaism except insofar as it effects this newspaper manipulating the news in accordance with a stone age and antiquated view of women.
That’d be the first time.
“The other woman removed” is Audrey Tomasen, the Director for Counterterrorism for the National Security Council, who was immodest enough to stand in front of a camera while doing her job.
These ancient religious laws denigrate women and I will pit them on that basis, whether you like it or not.