To follow culture or regulations?

Hillary Clinton and Audrey Tomason were removed from the picture that was taken together with Barack Obama and his staff while monitoring the Osama bin Laden raid. The Orthodox Jewish newspaper had apologized for their mistake by sending apologies to the White House and the US department of state. They have stated that their photo editor did not read the “fine print” that was attached with the White House photograph that prohibits changes.

Image obtained from http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/5/10/1305018716706/Hillary-Clinton-was-airbr-007.jpg

Image obtained from http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/5/10/1305021107362/Obama-Biden-Clinton-and-t-007.jpg

It was said that Di Tzeitung had a policy of not publishing images of women as they keep the belief of ultra-orthodox Jews. It regards to being immodest and women should be appreciated not based on their looks. Hence in this situation, I believe it is subjective to culture and rules and regulations of manipulating photographs. What would one do in order to keep their belief while having to cater to nationwide readers without being on the headlines for something offensive?

There was a similar case of editing off people in the images that was published by The Economist in 2010. Barack Obama was standing next to two people but both were digitally removed. According to Greenslade (2010), the picture described an “ideal metaphor for a politically troubled president”. However it was edited not due to cultural reasons but to make the focus clearer or things to look more severe (Peters, 2010).

In this cultural context, the code of ethics provided by National Press Photographers Association (2011) stated that “Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers to misrepresent subjects”. Though Di Tzeitung did not follow the code of ethics, they had to follow their own culture and belief as well as their readers. Putnis & Petelin (1999) also said that “…our beliefs about quite fundamental questions about the world, and the place of humans in it, vary greatly”. Therefore in this cultural context, if Di Tzeitung would remain the images of two women in their publication, their readers would refer them as being disrespectful and going against their beliefs.

References:

1. Greenslade, R 2010, Exposed- The Economist’s image of a lonely president who was not alone, Guardian, viewed 12^th November 2011, < http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/jul/06/the-economist-news-photography>.

2. National Press Photography Association, 2011, NPPA Code of Ethics, National Press Photography Association, viewed 12^th November 2011, < http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/ethics.html>.

3. Peters, J.W 2010, On the Economist’s Cover, Only a Part of the Picture, Media Decoder, viewed 12^th November 2011, < http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/on-the-economists-cover-only-a-part-of-the-picture/>.

4. Putnis, P & Petelin, R 1999, Professional Communication: Principles and Application, 2nd edn, Prentice Hall, Sydney.