dy
it’s not that people would think that there are no powerful women; it’s that they think that we are suppressing that fact, as a reflection of our views on women.
You’re right, in a sense (that it allowed people to claim that these are our views of women, although that claim was made out of ignorance) but I was addressing those who feel the paper acted dishonestly. As far as those who feel that the paper acted stupidly, I am in agreement, as I’ve mentioned.
The issue is that they lied about the fact that Hillary Clinton and Audrey Tomason were there
I disagree. Omission of a fact is not a lie (unless a strong inference could be made, which is doubtful in this case).
You say that “people viewing the photo would have believed that they weren’t in the room”, which is not true; they merely might not have known that they were not in the room, which is completely different. Besides, their normal readership knows that all pictures of women are removed.