Media Ethics: Issues and Cases 8th Edition by Philip Patterson, Lee Wilkins

Exercise 6

What Would Socrates Have Done? The Disappearance of Hillary Clinton
LEE WILKINS
University of Missouri
Photographs are sometimes labeled iconic too soon. But the photograph of President Barack Obama surrounded by his cabinet watching the real-time video of the attack on the compound where Osama bin Laden had been in hiding was labeled iconic before it was 24 hours old. As you look at the picture, notice that the papers in front of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others are "blurred." The White House, before it released the photograph, distorted the image so that, it said, high-security information would not be revealed through a detailed examination of the photograph itself.

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza
The meaning of the photograph, generally through an analysis of the expressions on people's faces, has been debated. For example, many who viewed the photograph said Clinton was the only person in the room showing shock at the images. Clinton herself has countered that interpretation, saying she was merely covering her nose and mouth to block a sneeze. The photograph itself, as well as the raid on the bin Laden compound, also became of the subject of a political campaign commercial and the subtext for foreign policy discussions in the 2012 presidential election.
Numerous print publications and broadcast outlets reproduced the photo. One of those was a Brooklyn-based Hasidic newspaper Der Zeitung, a paper that is written in Yiddish and serves a small segment of the ultra-orthodox Jewish community in that city.
In the photograph of the bin Laden raid printed in Der Zeitung, the image of Hillary Clinton and White House staffer Audrey Tomason, director for counterterrorism for the U.S. Security Council, were literally Photoshopped out of the picture.
Editors claimed that Secretary Clinton was deleted from the photograph because the paper serves a readership that places a high value on female modesty.
Critics countered that Der Zeitung, which translates as " The Time, " has edited out other images of women because the publication itself has an ideological objection to women holding positions of power.
"Visit these links to read more about this story and see Der Zeitung's controversial photo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/hillary-clinton-audrey-tomason-go-missing-insituation-room-photo-in-der-tzitung-newspaper/2011/05/09/AFfJbVYG_blog.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/05/09/136143892/hasidic-newspaper-removes-clinton-another-woman-from-iconic-photo"
One commentator, quoted in the Daily Mail in the UK, noted, "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?" How should the editor of Der Zeitung respond to this criticism? How might such a response emphasize the concept of loyalty?