And they did censor them in the past. But if you saw a censored photo you would be just as incensed. I guess they should have gone with the Amish option and just not publish the photo at all.
As an aside, if a guy was immodestly dressed, he would be censored as well. No underwear models in that paper. So bottom line is that we really hate that a small print newspaper has edited a picture for use with a story and that we feel that they are deceiving their readers. right? On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Eric Roberts < [email protected]> wrote: > > I think the fact that they removed the only 2 females is completely is an > act of dishonesty. They altered the facts in the photo. As others have > pointed out, if they were just interested in this modesty of women crap, > they could have censored the image without completely removing them. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 09:13 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Brooklyn-based Hasidic newspaper cuts Clinton, other woman > from > iconic photo > > > My point on consuming media is the result of the flow of the thread but it > does not change the base point. > > Was the editing of the picture right? no. Was it an attempt at dishonesty? > no. Do we know what the context that the picture was displayed with was? > no. > Is a newspaper read by a few thousand people max worth any of this > controversy? no > > So basically, we have an agreement that the editing was wrong and a > disagreement as to the intent of the editing. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:337602 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
