A New Sport: Spot the Problems

Above at the top is the inaugural photo of Binyamin Netanyahu's right wing Israeli government.

Below it is what was published by the ultra-Orthodox Jewish (i.e fanatical, fundamentalist, extremist) newspaper Yated Ne'eman.

The chauvanist ultra-Orthodox Jewish editors erased from the photo two women who are ministers - Limor Livnat (Minister of Culture & Sport) and Sofa Landver (Minister of Immigration Absorption).

As you can see, the censors at Yated Neeman superimposed onto the gaps they'd created the enlarged images of a couple of men (who had been standing at the extremes in the official picture). The men are Ariel Atias (Minister of Housing & Construction), one of the extremist Shas members of Netanyahu's regime, and Moshe Kahlon (Minister of Communications), a Likud MK.

Another newspaper for Jewish fundamentalists Sha'a Tova newspaper just blacked the women out altogether.

Imagine how they edit and re-package the rest of the news!


  1. Oh orana, we don't have to imagine how they re-edit and re-package the rest of the news! And the practice is widespread as you have exampled in a glaring case on another thread.

    I once had occasion to email the ABC over an interview with Alan Dershowitz. I was raising the matter of the interviewer allowing Dershowitz to give an account that omitted key factors in the Israel/Palestine issue - such as the occupation. The ABC's reply was to the effect that it is not the interviewer's job to challenge the subject over such matters. So, is their job merely as a stenographer? Well, it works for some - such as the NYTimes and the lead up to the Iraq invasion, etc.

    Back to the photos - perhaps captions can be suggested .. such as "Ministers undergo sex change operations".

  2. I don't really have a problem with Sha'a Tova simply 'balcking out' the images of the women - at least they're not being dishonest about it and, if that's their cultural thing then so be it.

    But to replace the wommen with images of men, as Yated Ne'eman has, infering that there are no women in the cabinet, is plain dishonest.

  3. ridiculously, even risibly simple vs. ultra-sophisticated nuancing

    I may at times resemble an ignorant rube - but I know what I like; g'day Damian.

    And what I like in this - or almost any case (with vanishingly small exception), is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I mean, if we wish for romance or fiction, we could read a novel or a comic. One of the prerequisites for a properly functioning democracy ("the only one in the ME!!?") - is a properly informed electorate.

    Any - and I mean the tiniest - variation from the hard, shining truth is - ta-ra! A lie. Altering a photo seems to me to be such a variation - and therefore a (filthy!) lie. Oh! - Only IMHO, as usual and of course. Then again, that whole country lives a permanent lie; nothing to see here - move along!

  4. I tend to agree IDH. I guess the ultimate honesty would have been for the publishers to say that the images of the women had been removed from the picture for cultural reasons. To pretend they never existed is dishonest.

  5. A couple of things occur to me; the Russkies and Chinks were often strongly condemned for air-brushing fallen idols from their photies, it would hardly be surprising if Pol Pot was into such stuff too (he certainly attracts enough opprobrium from ultra-righties). Then, a law was discussed on our TV news last night - a new law 'made in Afghanistan,' which as we know has been recently (8 years long and still only partly) 'liberated' by the US. The law was assessed as offending against human rights - it contained discriminatory items towards women. Sooo, this extremist sect in Israel has aligned itself with ... mind you, I always thought that religion was the 'storehouse' of morals. What sort of morals do liars demonstrate? Lies directed at women? - But on the other hand, this extremist sect is chicken-feed - in a nation which for 60+ long and bloody years has murdered its neighbours in order to occupy those erstwhile (and still!) legal owners' land. Nothing to see here - move along!