So a Hasidic newspaper edited the photo of Obama et al in the situation room to remove poor Hillary (and another less-famous woman) from the shot.
If they didn’t want to show Hillary (or any woman) in the photo, they simply shouldn’t have run it. Easy. There was no need to be revisionist. By erasing her from the photo, they were basically denying that she was there.
The paper has since apologised. Not for publishing a doctored photo so much as failing to read the fine print that said the photo could not be edited or manipulated. The readers of the paper, you see, “believe that women should be appreciated for who they are and what they do, not for what they look like”.
How can their readers appreciate Hillary for what she’s done when she’s not shown as being there? By showing pictures of Obama and the other men, should we take it that the paper’s readers are appreciating them for their chiseled good looks as opposed to what they’ve done?
I’m pretty sure that lying would run counter to their religious beliefs. And that’s exactly what they did when they removed Hilary from that photo.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t be all that fussed if the media took the same approach to photos of Lindsay Lohan.