Religious paper doctors situation room photo

Although this isn't sports journalism, it's a journalism topic nonetheless and fits better here than on the News & Sports board.
An ultra-orthodox Jewish newspaper recently ran a doctored situation room photo with Hillary Clinton and Audrey Tomason photoshopped out of the picture.
I'm going to assume we're all in agreement that the paper was in the wrong to do this.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/09/religious-paper-cuts-clinton-from-iconic-photo/

http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/jewish_techs/hasidic_newspaper_photoshops_hillary_clinton_iconic_photo

 

Haters gon' hate.

 

Pretty stupid thing to do.

 

What the paper did was unethical, and dumb. No doubt. If you don't allow pictures with women in them, better not use them in the first place. But this does bring up an interesting question.

They HAD to think their readers would know that photo was doctored. They made an editorial decision based on their religious views and were obvious about it.

The photos came courtesy of the White House with usage restrictions: 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.

But what does that mean, really, if you're a small religious publication in Brooklyn? Are there any REAL consequences? Does the audience -- a niche religion that believes a picture of a woman is an offense before God - find the organization any less credible?

 

Such restrictions placed on the photo are meaningless. The White House doesn't own the photo. (U.S. government agencies can't copyright anything. As soon as the photo was created, it was owned by the American public. The newspaper is free to manipulate it in any way it likes.)

Ethical questions are meaningful here. But the legal restrictions mean nothing. The White House can't put restrictions on a photo it doesn't own.

 

The people who read that paper do so for a reason. They didn't miss anything they would have wanted to know.

 

Is this what they printed?

 

Then why use the photo. Use it the way it actually is or don't use it at all. Changing it is changing the facts.

 

It's also interesting to note that the White House "doctored" the photo before releasing it to anyone.

The document in front of Clinton was blurred.

 

Dumb. They could have cropped the picture. Just cut out the right third and it would have removed both women.
but i also read that by photoshopping the picture, that also violated a tenet of orthodox jews because it was unintentional deceit.

 

"I'd like to make Hillary disappear" / Bill Clinton

 

You stole my line!