It is not a fight my friend, it is the altering of a historical photograph to appease the editors of a newspaper. This paper is not reporting news but attempting to alter it to their liking...sound familiar?
You seem to be upset, I was just delivering the article because I believe it was unethical and would be an intersting topic, and for the moderator to close this, i would think it would be unlikely.
Ever consider before posting how many people saw the original relative to the doctored version? Think you need to review it from that perspective instead of faking outrage over a non-issue.
I suppose it as much as a policy/belief of considering it immodest to have women seen as equals with, and working with, men in the political and social spheres as it is a case of sexual/gender modesty.
But as CGW suggested, it is a newspaper put out by and for the faithful of this particular sect of the Jewish faith. The newspaper has apologized to the White House and State Department, and the lessons have hopefully been learned. I personally have learned a little by this thread being started, for which I thank ishutteratthethought.
At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.
If anyone is curious about the actual issues involved, then look at the comments under the "Failed Messiah" blog entry I linked above, and be prepared to Google a few words that may be unfamiliar. To understand the context of the blog, recognize that there are many different orthodox Jewish sects that have differing views on many issues (for instance they don't all have the same standards for what is kosher, and some will not buy meat from a butcher outside their group, even if many other groups would consider said butcher to be strictly kosher), and the blog is authored by a dissenter and attracts readers and comments of other Jews who grew up Orthodox and in many cases consider themselves to be observant Jews, but they may reject the insularity or other aspects of the group they were brought up in.
One thing I do wonder about is that if they regarded the image of Hillary Clinton to be "immodest"--hard to believe as it may be, but after all, she is a woman revealing her own natural hair in the presence of men outside her immediate family, and this isn't condoned among readers of Der Tzitung (transliterations from Yiddish vary--Tzitung/Tzeitung/or German Zeitung)--why, as suggested above, didn't they just black or pixelate her out, rather than Photoshopping her as if she wasn't there. Heck, they could have even Photoshopped a sheitel onto her head, if they were going to go to such an extent. Would it be more dishonest to suggest that Hillary Clinton wears a sheitel than that she wasn't in the room?
Neither the photographers "copywrite" or the terms under which the photo is made available are an issue in this case. It is a photo made by a government photographer paid for by taxes, when released it is in the public domain.
Despite the publication's backpedaling regarding the terms, the manipulation would be considered protected speech and the terms are unenforceable.
Steve- You write with great authority, so you obviously must know what you are talking about. Please elaborate for the mere mortals among us and give us further education. Citations would be particularly helpful. (Or you can just back out, but the "gracefully" part is probably beyond your abilities).