"Normally getting rid of Hillary Clinton requires an entire presidential primary"

News and Journalism Project
By: Greta Mohney and Kelly Rinehart

The summaries of the articles are written in normal font, while our analysis for each source is written in italics.

*Note: The newspaper that we have based our news and journalism project on is Di Tzeitung newspaper out of Brooklyn, New York. Di Tzeitung is the correct spelling and is also the website for the newspaper (http://ditzeitung.com/). Throughout our analysis, the spelling of this newspaper is different, because for all the sources they all have their own interpretation of the spelling and we did not want to mess with the sources. We apologize for any confusion.



The Official White House Flickr Page: The Situation Room

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5680724572/

This is the direct link to “The Situation Room” photo of The White House’s official Flickr page. The caption below the picture lists everyone in the picture and his or her respective job as part of the national security team, as well as a blurb about a classified document that has been obscured from view.

There is also a written statement on the very bottom claiming:
“This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.”

We think that this picture is very powerful, but at the same time for this particular situation, the newspaper could have picked one of the other images off the White House flickr page that didn’t include women to begin with in their publishing. While not as powerful we think it would be more fitting for the paper, and less offensive to people who do not understand the Hasidic Jewish Culture. There is a picture chronologically right before the infamous situation room picture of just President Barack Obama and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon that would have been a good fit for the overall situation of the picture.

It is also important that the White House has it’s own Flickr, because it gives the public an insight into it’s daily life. The White House is such a sacred political, and American landmark that having a look inside is almost as good as being there for some people. We as citizens get to see the President at work in various offices so it’s almost as if we are there with him working. We think that the White House flickr is a pretty fair, unbiased look into the daily activities that take place there, being that is isn’t the official page of say the democratic or republican party.

Chomsky and Herman say that “Powerful sources may also use their prestige and importance to the media as a lever to deny critics access to the media” and in the next paragraph say “ powerful sources regularly take advantage of media routines and dependency to "manage" the media, to manipulate them into following a special agenda and framework”. We think both of those are true because the White House gives public insight, but also doesn’t allow for the public to see everything. A perfect example of this is the Situation Room photo because us as the viewers can look at the still frame picture and imagine what is going on, but at the same time the camera is only taking a picture of the people-and blurs out some important classified documents.

Feminist, Jewish Woman’s Blog

http://jwa.org/blog/hillary-clinton-too-sexy-for-hasidic-newspaper

This is a 342 word Blog post about the alteration of the photograph by removing Hilary Clinton and Audrey Tomason. The blog is written by Jewish women about a wide variety of subjects. The writer of this blog post, Leah Berkenwald, obviously does not agree with this newspaper and states, “newspaper, Der Tzeitung, has decided to rewrite history by photo-shopping Hillary Clinton out of the photo.” She comments on Hillary’s outfit by asking,”So is this image of Hillary Clinton in long sleeves and a high neckline suggestive?” She also comments on how the alteration of the image, “it's untruthful and goes against every principle of journalism, which is not only about being "fair and balanced," but about being accurate.”

Overall Leah seems offended by the changes made to the photo and states, “Basically, it's an insult to everybody. I am in shock that a Jewish newspaper would falsify the record of history in order to continue living in a make-believe world without feminism. This is, in no uncertain terms, "bad for the Jews." The writer believes what the newspaper Der Tzeitung did was inappropriate and offensive. Leah believes that by deleting the women from this picture, it seems to say women don’t belong next to me in society, that men are not able to control themselves around women, that men are only attracted to women, and that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender are not real since they do not fit the idea that men are only attracted to women and women are only attracted to men.

Leah presents the information in her article as if the newspaper handled the situation incorrectly and in the process have offended many people. She mentions that the have gone against the rules of journalism since they altered history and we not accurate with what occurred in the photograph. Even though she is Jewish, she clearly does not believe in what this Jewish newspaper has done.

A lot of what Chomsky and Herman wrote about ‘Flak” can be attributed to this Der Tzeitung newspaper article. Chomsky and Herman define Flak as “negative responses to a media statement or program. It may take the form of letters, telegrams, phone calls, petitions, lawsuits, speeches and bills before Congress, and other modes of complaint, threat, and punitive action. It may be organized centrally or locally, or it may consist of the entirely independent actions of individuals.” Not only does this altered photograph cause negative responses, but the negative responses are organized world-wide. We know that it is world-wide because some of are articles are from the United Kingdom.

In this blog, Leah the writer had identified herself as a strong feminist, Jewish woman, which is probably her target market, on her homepage. It is a blog so she is entitled to her own opinion, but it definitely biased. She doesn’t identify what sect of the Jewish religion she follows, but with the overall tone of her article it is safe to say she is not an ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jewish woman. She refers to the altered photo as the “photoshop of horrors” and claims it is wrong on so many levels. Her three arguments for the picture being wrong are that it goes against every rule of journalism, goes against the Jewish rule of g'neivat da'at (Deceit), and that it goes against the request of the White House not to alter the photograph. Then she says the ultimate violation is that of the denial of feminism.
While the rules of feminism and journalism are difficult to monitor, it is up to the Jewish community how they would like to deal with g'neivat da'at and the Der Tzeitung newspaper. They seem to have two conflicting views on the subject so it is hard to say which one is in fact correct, not necessarily morally correct.

UK Article Focusing on Audrey Tomason, Director of Counter-Terrorism

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383959/Who-Audrey-Tomason-The-mystery-woman-situation-room-photo.html

This is an article entitled “Who is Audrey Tomason? The mystery of the women in the Situation Room photo” with 791 words describing who Audrey Tomason is. This article explains that after the original white house photo of the Situation Room was released many questioned who the other woman in the room was. This article explain in depth all the knowledge that has been circulating around her. Although all of it has not been proven, this information give a good idea of who she is and what her job is.

It is believed she is the Director for Counter-terrorism in the Executive Office of the President. She is considered to have intensive amount of knowledge of al-Qaida even before 9/11. Although she has had no field experience as a terrorist analysts she has been a part of many different events involving terrorism, including one where she kept “German citizen Khalid al-Masri locked up for weeks because she had 'a gut feeling he was bad'”. Overall this article offers a look into who Audrey Tomason is and why she was allowed into the situation room while updates were received on the mission against Osama bin Laden.

We think that this article is very important, being that for most of the coverage it is all about Hillary Clinton being removed from the picture, while mention is hardly ever made regarding Ms. Tomason. There is a difference in stature in the photograph with Clinton being in the front of the photograph with Tomason is in the back, and that Clinton is more well known that Tomason, but both were edited out. In Chomsky’s and Herman’s article, the third filter is sourcing mass media news.

They write that “Government and corporate sources also have the great merit of being recognizable and credible by their status and prestige. This is important to the mass media.” The part of government having the great merit of being recognizable by their status is very important for the women who were cropped out. Not that people need help recognizing Hillary Clinton or how important she is, but I think this shines a light on Audrey Tomason. She was hardly known before this picture was taken, but now has a light casted upon her as a significant figure.

We think a common thing that happened for Audrey Tomason was that no one hardly knew who she was, then the general public heard she was cropped out of the picture along with Hillary Clinton, and then read that she was the Director for Counter-Terrorism-making it easier to give flak to the newspaper for editing her out, even though in hindsight the reader might of not even known who she was to begin with.

Newspaper Article with User Comments about Modesty of Women and Jewish Laws

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384847/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-Newspaper-edits-Hillary-Clinton-Situation-Room-photo.html

651 words on Hasidic newspaper editing out Hillary Clinton. This article explains in depth how the newspaper Der Zeitung edited out Hillary and Audrey Tomason from an original photo and published, even though the written statement from near the photo had stated, “this photo may not be manipulated.” This news source is a larger media company. The writer of this article, “Paul Bentley seems to not agree with the actions of the newspaper, since he directly quotes two blogger’s opinions such as, “These views are frankly the antithesis of progress...Der Zeitung should bow its head in shame” and “This is a bit silly. Secretary of State Clinton was not dressed immodestly. There was no intent of objectification in the photo. Haven’t the editors got something better to do?” While he states, “The Der Zeitung newspaper declined to comment.” and offers no other sources for the supporting point of view. Overall this article is very informative, however, it seems to present the news in a biased way since it does not offer both points of view for this stories, and offers two opposing points instead. This could lead one to believe it is attempting to get us to look at this event in a certain way and has controlled over how we, the public, actually see how things actual were.
We think that this article particularly focuses on the modesty of the women the photograph, and having an offensive approach to analyze the Der Tzeitung newspaper itself. We found the critic comments very interesting.

'These views are frankly the antithesis of progress. The men who publish this paper believe women should live lives behind closed doors, but this is the 21st century and there are extraordinarily capable women who hold positions of immense power, and do so with dignity and grace.

This individual is seemingly attaching for Der Tzeitung for following through with their own beliefs, which she identifies as wrong through her beliefs. This comment seems to be the overall feeling that a lot of people have towards the article, but is interesting as the hypocritical thought is produced.

'Der Zeitung should bow its head in shame and apologize to the millions of women who have worked hard to acheive equity in the modern world.'

This critic is demeaning a whole religion for not publishing photos of women. The newspaper has with countless effort said they do not mean to put women down, they just don’t believe in showing them in photographs. It is a hard concept to grasp, but after we have analyzed this story through and through, we have a better understanding for the newspaper.

'This is a bit silly. Secretary of State Clinton was not dressed immodestly. There was no intent of objectification in the photo. Haven’t the editors got something better to do?'

This critic is also wearing blinders when it comes to the fact that the Jewish community is not trying to put women down, but just not show them and follow the orthodox beliefs they have been raised on.
We know it is clear the Der Tzeitung did not mean to cause such controversy with editing out the women in the pictures, and it is equally clear that people like to invoke their right of speak to attack this small newspaper.

New York Times Blog

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/newspaper-regrets-erasing-hillary-clinton/

This New York Times Blog Post is a 547 word written by Robert Mackey onto his blog The Lede. He presents the news very straight forward and he includes several links, either to the flicker photo the article discusses or to statements or reports made by others. Mackey explains plainly how the “ultra Orthodox Newspaper” apologized for altering a photo. He informs that this newspaper only tapered with the photo to delete Hilary Clinton and Audrey Tomason because the newspaper’s board does not allow photos to be published of women. He states that Shmarya Rosenberg, a writer of the blog FailedMessiah.com, noticed the photos altercation in the newspaper.

This altercation was wrongly done, since the photo taken from Flickr, had small print which read it could not be changed. He continues with the fact the photo had actually already been altered, since a document in the original photo was confidential and had to be deleted. Mackey then explains how the altering of the photo was not done to offend Clinton, since they have supported her in the past, but is actually quite common in the this type of newspapers.

He presents this information in a very informative and direct manner. He does not mention his own opinion or interests, but explains both sides of the argument. His presentation of the information is very straight forward and does not lead the reader to believe any particular idea about this event. Instead he allows the reader to formulate their own opinion by stating all the facts without attempting to persuade the reader in either direction.

We decided to use this blog post as a way of seeing how one of the media giants presents their version of this event. Although the article seems unbiased and to present the news accurately, it spends three paragraphs explaining the reasons behind why the newspaper deleted the image, one more paragraph explaining that similar newspapers have done the same in the past, and three more paragraphs directly quoting Ben Smith who seems not to be offended by the Newspaper’s actions. Overall, this New York Times blog post may seem unbiased however they present the story in a way that makes the newspaper’s actions not a big deal, by focusing on the ideas and values of different Jewish religions instead. This leads us to believe that the writer of this article may have been influenced by owners, stockholders, directors, bankers, and the list goes on and on.

The Colbert Report Video Clip

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/385700/may-09-2011/hasidic-newspaper-removes-hillary-clinton
The following is a 371 word transcript of Colbert’s Report on Di Tzeitung editing out Hillary Clinton:

Thank you ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much, welcome to the report!
(crowd chants Stephen multiple times)Thank you very much, thank you.
For a second there I wasn’t sure if that was going to coalesce into a snowball.
Good to have you with us, I hope everybody had a good mothers’ day. I celebrated as I always do, in the fetal position. But folks, there is no time to waste, let’s go to tonight’s breaking news about what happened 8 days ago. Osama Bin Laden continues his crowd-pleasing death. All the newspapers are covering it, from the New York Times to The Daily News, to the New York Post. But folks that’s just New York they are also covering it in other parts of the country, like Brooklyn. I was particularly impressed by the coverage in Di Tzeitung, Brooklyn’s Hasidic newspaper of record. Jim…(cuts to fox news clip) Impressive, normally getting rid of Hillary Clinton requires an entire presidential primary. They removed her because Di Tzeitung, policy is to “…not intentionally include any images of women in the paper because it could be considered sexually suggestive.” And I folks, I am with the Hasid on this one, there is nothing more sexually suggestive than a woman killing a terrorist. In fact, at my bachelor party, a Margaret Thatcher impersonator in a thick tweed pantsuit clubbed an Ayatollah Khomeini look a like to death. Don’t tell my wife she thinks I was at a strip club. So Di Tzeitung only had two options, either take her out of the photo, or hide the fact that she’s a woman-for instance, by making her hand bigger (clip of hand covering entire face). Of course, of course, Di Tzeitung’s policy of removing women from photographs is not without it’s complications. Back in the ‘70s when Golda Meier was the prime minister of Israel, their reader’s assumed the country was being run by a headstrong podium. And think how hard this is on teenage Hasidic boys. Any empty spot in a photo could be a woman. Most boys hide the Victoria’s Secret catalog under their bed, but I’m sure teenage Di Tzeitung readers prefer architectural digest. Those sumptuous interiors leave everything to the imagination.

This video clip takes a comedic approach to the deletion of Hillary Clinton from the picture in the Jewish Newspaper. In this video it jokes about how usually to get rid of Hillary you would need “an entire presidential primary” and explains how she was removed from the photo since any images of women “could be considered sexually suggestive”.

This video clip provides comic relief to the whole ordeal, as Colbert’s stories usually do. He even states, “how hard this is on teenage Hasidic boys. Any empty spot in a photo could be a woman. Most boys hide the Victoria’s Secret catalog under their bed, but I’m sure teenage Di Tzeitung readers prefer architectural digest.” Overall he just gives a brief overview of the event and makes fun of the different parts. Stephen does not attempt to make you view the article, yet instead pokes fun at the different individual ideas in his news clip, such as how young boys readers of this magazine never get the chance to see women, since they are just “empty spots”.

This short video clip makes fun of the manipulation of the photograph and the situations surrounding it. By making fun of the newspaper, Stephen presents a negative response to this media’s actions. This video clips is a good example of flask and how newspapers avoid negative responses to avoid a negative image. Although Stephen Colbert is well known for making fun of current events, I believe he does a good job of keeping media on it’s toes. Without a news source, such as the Colbert Report, that presents the negatives of a current event, the public may not look critically upon the information that they are given, which could eventually cause the media to be able to manipulate and change the public’s view over time.

We think more sources should look critically upon the mass media and point out the negatives, either through comedy or by other means. By doing this the public realizes that all media has holes and may not be presented accurately.

The target audience for this clip is practically anyone, since it’s comedy can be understood by almost anyone. By offering a refreshing view on current events Colbert’s report offers it’s viewer a different take on things.

Brooklyn’s Local Fox News Video and Article

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/09/ny-jewish-paper-sorry-altering-white-house-pic/

This is a 373 word article along with a video posted by Fox News, first written by the Associate Press. The reporter in the video is Zack Fink for My 9 News, but no longer works there. In his video he gives the basics of the story, that the newspaper (Di Tzeitung) did not mean to offend anyone and the decision to remove the women from the photo was based on their religious beliefs. Then he goes out into the area and asks the citizens for their opinions. There was a Jewish woman and a man interviewed and they both acknowledged that it was out of religious beliefs and did not believe that it was done to cause any harm. The man in the video says he thinks people are taking it way out of proportion.

Back to the article, it states at the beginning that the newspaper is sorry for editing out Hillary Clinton, but makes no mention of an apology for Audrey Tomason. A source at Di Tzeitung said the newspaper has a "long standing editorial policy" of not publishing women's images, explaining its readers "believe that women should be appreciated for who they are and what they do, not for what they look like, and the Jewish laws of modesty are an expression of respect for women, not the opposite." The article points out the the weekly newspaper said while the democratic Clinton was working in the U.S. Senate for New York, she won the majority of the Orthodox Jewish communities because they "appreciated her unique capabilities, talents and compassion for all. The time that this article was written, the White House, who originally published the photo, had no comment.

This article gives a more local opinion to the controversial story, by interviewing residents of Brooklyn, and not just getting opinions from everywhere else. In the top left corner of the page under the Fox News logo, there is the slogan Fair & Balanced. This is interesting because Fox is known for having more of a conservative view on topics, rather than being fair and balanced, with this particular news coverage following suit.

In the article it says that “Di Tzeitung, published in Yiddish, is sold at city newsstands, especially in Brooklyn's Williamsburg and Borough Park neighborhoods, which have many Orthodox Jewish residents”. While it does supply to their target market, that remark makes it seem like the newspaper did not do anything wrong in the first place by altering the image.

The paper said that women should be appreciated for who they are and what they do, not for what they look like, so couldn’t that apply to everyone, or even be an argument for publishing the photo in the first place without altering it. It is a bit hypocritical for the paper to say that but still edit them out of the picture.

Although it doesn’t say that everyone should be appreciated for who they are and what they do, not what the look it-it might as well. That just brings the situation back to why even publish the photo if it does not matter what the individual looks like. We are not fluent in Yiddish so we can’t say if Clinton or Tomason’s names were in the article, but that way each individual reader could decided whether to look the photo up or not if their names were in the article.

Orthodox Jewish Website Question and Answer Blog

http://www.orthodox-jews.com/orthodox-jewish-brooklynbased-hasidic-newspaper-der-zeitung-cut-hillary-clinton-from-white-house-picture.html#ixzz1clrQ29kK

This is a 440 word blog clip from an Orthodox Jew website. The web site's header is on the homepage states “Everything You Need To Know About Orthodox Jews” The person who is running the website is named Chava, named after the first woman on earth. A female viewer of the website, named Fawn, posed a question regarding the rules in Orthodox history to see if it explicitly said somewhere that women are not to be viewed in photographs. This question came off of all the controversy over Der Tzeitung’s newspaper article. Chava replies saying that there is no law in Halachic law ruling forbidding women to be published, but cites a few passages from the bible where it advises against it. Chava writes that

“There is a general Bible commandment to refrain from sexual thought (Numbers 15:39) that result into sexual action outside of marriage. In Shulchan Aruch (The book of code of Jewish law, Eben Huezer 21:1) it states that a person should go far far from women and shouldn't have any type of relation (The Shilchun Urech mentions an example of winking with eye to a female etc.) that can result into further closeness. Therefore any type of relation that is beyond professional or business needed contact is to be omitted by Orthodox Jews.”

Although these are just guidelines the Hasidic sect has even more strict rules about women in photography. Not all Jewish persons are as extreme as the Hasidic sect but there is a nice percentage of them who follow these rules. The reader Fawn also asks what happened when Golda Meier was the prime minister of Israel.

This is a good article because it gives insight to Jewish culture, without being biased or judgemental. The viewer asks a a simple question of ‘Is it against Jewish law to publish photos of women?’ which a lot of people may have asked themselves. We asked this question ourselves when first stumbling upon the article, because it seemed so strange-cropping people out a photograph. Even though the answer turned out to be no, there was a nice insight as to why this particular newspaper chose to act on that principle.
We think out of Chomsky and Herman’s principles this article best fits under the first filter: Size, Ownership and Profit Orientation of the Mass Media. The size of the media that was before and after the article was publish had increased in great numbers. This website was there to allow the increasing numbers of people interested in this topic leisurely look it up without having to use other resources to find the answer.
We believe the target audience of this website is just anyone looking for information of orthodox Jewish beliefs, so it is a reliable source for that purpose. The author of the website says she is a teacher at a Jewish school so we don’t believe she is trying to push the faith or anything, but merely just inform. By having this information on the web it is very easy for anyone to access it.

CNN video with Di Tzeitung publisher Albert Friedmann

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2011/05/09/tsr.snow.manipulated.photo.cnn

This is a video clip from CNN and the publisher of Di Tzeitung newspaper regarding the outburst and negative attention the newspaper has been getting as a result of editing out Hillary Clinton and Audrey Tomason from The Situation Room photo. CNN’s Mary Snow investigates the other side of this argument, one that is hardly scene-the Orthodox Hasidic Jewish side. The video opens with her showing the photo and saying how it’s become an icon, then mentions Di Tzeitung and how it removed the picture. The next clip is with Snow and the publisher of Di Tzeitung, Albert Friedman, discussing the photograph and how the magazine has gone from a small community of orthodox Jews, to being in the national spotlight. The newspaper according to Friedman has roughly 20,000 readers. Friedman talks about how they don’t publish images of women because of religious beliefs, but it doesn’t mean they don’t respect women.

In the ultra-orthodox Jewish neighborhood where Di Tzeitung is published, the rules are so strict that there are signs posted for women that skirts are not to be less that 4-inches below the knee. A non-ultra orthodox Jewish rabbi says altering the photo has changes the view on history. By removing Clinton, they changed history. Friedman defends his ultra-orthodox Jewish beliefs, but also admits the photograph should not have been published in his paper at all. He reportedly called the White House and the State Department to apologize, and plans to print a statement in the next paper regarding the controversy of the altered photograph in his paper.

We thought this was a really insightful article to look at being that all of the other ones are an outside view looking in on the situation with roughly the same opinion. This gave us an insight right to the source, the publisher or Di Tzeitung magazine - and the beliefs that he and his newspaper abide by.

The refreshing view we got into the actual community where the newspaper was published really helped us better understand why the photo was included. The target for the newspaper is just the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish citizens, so they didn’t think it would be looked down upon to alter the image and publish it. The signs that are hanging along the streets reminding everyone of the women’s modesty laws really puts the image into perspective. A person wearing jeans and a sweatshirt in just as modestly covered and a woman in a long skirt, but the jeans and sweatshirt are not a part of the beliefs. It is hard to understand that the paper didn’t mean to make women look less important or unrespected, but after looking on the other side it makes more sense.

Apology Issued by Di Tzeitung Newspaper

http://www.vosizneias.com/83341/2011/05/09/brooklyn-ny-hasidic-newspaper-issues-staement-on-situation-room-photo/

This is a 532 word article that gives Der Tzeitung’s apology. The apology itself is 383 words with the rest being filled in by a reporter, Sandy Eller, at Vos Iz Neias? news. Vos Iz Neias is Yiddish for What’s News. There is not much to the article other than what Der Tzeitung wrote as their apology. The preface to the apology is that the outrage of Der Tzeitung’s dismissal of Hillary Clinton and Audrey Tomason has cause a lot of controversy between the Jewish and non-Jewish communities across the country.

The apology states that The White House released the “live” picture of the President and other various high-ranking government officials. They go on to say that their photo editor realized the significance of the photo, but failed to read the fine print on the official photo prohibiting alterations of the photograph. Der Tzeitung’s regrets and apologies are given to the White House and to the State Department. Then the paper addresses the “allegations that religious Jews denigrate women or do not respect women in public office” by calling the allegations “malicious slander and libel”. They have nothing but respect for Hillary Clinton, saying she won overwhelming majorities in the Orthodox Jewish communities in New York while she was a Senator for 8 years.

Der Tzeitung respects all of the government officials, and even have special prayers for them. They write that all Government employees are sworn into office, so they must adhere to the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and the Jewish religion does not allow discrimination. The newspaper says that they do no publish photos of women, which in now way relegates them to a lower status.

The Rabbinical Board guides the policies while publishing the Der Tzeitung newspaper. They finish off the apology saying they are proud Americans of the Jewish faith, and will continue as law-abiding citizens until the ultimate redemption.

This is a very unique apology to us. It does not really state that they are sorry for altering the picture, but instead puts blame on the photo-editor for not realizing the fine print. The ‘Fine Print’ that the newspaper is referring to isn’t any smaller than any other print on the website. It is just merely at the end of the second paragraph, so the photo editor must not have read the caption below the photograph. The apology also seems more defensive of the Jewish culture than actually feeling sorry for doing something wrong. While based on their religious beliefs they didn’t do anything wrong, but that is not an excusable reason based on the U.S. law. It is a fine line to walk between church and state, so it is difficult to really decide how to respond to the newspaper.

Chomsky and Holmes wrote that “Newsworkers are predisposed to treat bureaucratic accounts as factual because news personnel participate in upholding a normative order of authorized knowers in the society” which makes it seem to me that the newspaper could be determined as a fictional piece according to those two. They are not treating the accounts as factual in their document because the picture is altered, changing what really happened.

Their target market were other ultra-Orthodox, Hasidic Jews that didn’t have a problem with the photo alteration because it was what they all believe, but anyone could pick up that newspaper, not just the target market. And the First Amendment does allow for freedom of press, but the White House did issues a statement that the photo was allowed for journalism, but could not be altered.

Overall Analysis Of All The Sources:

We compared many different kinds of sources about the alteration of a photo by removing Hillary Clinton and Audrey Tomason from an important scene in the Situation Room. Most of the sources we looked at just focused on the removal of Hillary Clinton, but a few did mention Audrey Tomason, and one whole source was dedicated to her. By looking at many sources we were able to get a broader view and understanding of what this news story was all about. We looked at blogs with personal opinions to big news sources like CNN, to well known sources like the New York Times.

Overall, our sources were quite different. Some sources were very straight forward and just stated the facts and gave direct quotes while others gave a brief summary of the events before giving their opinion, which was usually against the actions of this newspaper. After comparing all these sources we have come to the conclusion that although Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky believe that larger media companies control the way we view the events and articles they present to us, we do not completely agree with their idea. It is true that these bigger powerful news companies own a large section of the news, since their articles were easier to find. However, compared to other news sources we looked at, especially some of the blog posts, we found that the did not necessarily force us to view this event a certain way. However, they do have a tendency to give only quotes from one side.

For example, the Fox News article quotes the magazine and another magazine for reasons why they acted his why and decided to manipulate the image. Fox, however, does not give any information from the other point of view, which causes us to speculate whether or not they are trying to get us to look at this event as a mistake and done rightfully when compared to their religious beliefs. Another example, the British media company the Daily Mail briefly describes the event, however it offers two direct quotes from the opposing point of view and none from the supporting point of view. It also states that the newspaper did not want to comment, which leads the reader to believe what this newspaper did was wrong and they should feel bad.

We believe this article should show both points of view to prevent from seeming biased. However, this article supports the idea by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky that larger powerful media companies control how we, the public, view events and images. Since this article portrays what the newspaper did as being wrong, by quoting several sources, it leads the reader to also believe that the newspaper did wrong. According to Herman and Chomsky’s “Manufacturing consent: a propaganda model” there are five filters that interact with each other to shape the news that the public receives. For example, one of those filters is the “size, ownership, and profit orientation of the mass media”, which includes big corporations such as The New York Times. Herman and Chomsky believe these corporation have “the pressure of stockholders, directors, and bankers” which help to influence what and how different news articles are handled.

Another one of these filters is the “advertising license to do business” which emphasises the importance of different advertising companies on the media and how media is effected. They state, “the mass media are interested in attracting audiences with buying power, not audiences per se” which explains that even though it may not be obvious to us, these media sources are being influences by the advertising business, which also effects how the news in portrayed to the public.

Another filter is the “sourcing mass media” in which explain the effect of economics on the accessibility to raw news. For example, large bureaucracies have control over the mass media, since they offer many different services to ease the work financially and physically of these news corporation. Since our topic was about a picture from the white house, it is clear the government had an effect on how this story was presented. In none of our sources are Clinton, Tomason, or the White House asked for their opinion, however in many of the articles it is made clear that what the Jewish newspaper did to the photograph was wrong, which leads us to believe that the government had some influence in how this news was presented.

Flak is the fourth filter, which is when a negative response is given to a product of the media. For example, Stephen Colbert’s report presents a negative response, by making fun, of how newspapers across the country are presenting Osama bin Laden’s death. He also gives a negative response to how the newspaper Di Tzeitung presented the image of the Situation Room, by joking how hard it is to erase Hillary and pretending to agree that deleting her from the picture was the best solution. By making fun of Di Tzeitung’s presentation of this image, Stephen attacks them, which in turn makes him a flask machine.

The last filter of “Manufacturing Consent” is the idea of anticommunism. This idea is used, “against anybody advocating policies that threaten property interests or support accomodation with Communist states and radicalism.” For example, the situation room photo appeared on The White House’s official Flickr page with the statement,““This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions.” Since the White House made this photo available to be viewed by anyone, but only to be publicated by certain parties they were protecting their own property interests. However, then Di Tzeitung threatened those property interests by not following the rules against manipulation, which could seem to some as an anticommunist idea . Since many of our sources are against the actions of Di Tzeitung, they are using anticommunism as a control mechanism, since communist are feared and no mass media wants a bad image by promoting communism, or in our case by supporting Di Tzeitung’s actions.

Overall, after the analysis of a broad range of many new sources and mass medias we have come to the conclusion that Herman and Chomsky are correct in the way mass media presents information to the public. The mass media corporations are influences in many ways, such as their ownership, advertising as a source of income, the information received from the government or businesses, the negative responses to media, and the anticommunist movement. Overall it has become clear to use that unfortunately the news we receive is not as unbiased and straight forward as we though and many different aspects in our modern day world influence how different sources of media present the news to the public.