In June 2010, the Economist ran a cover showing Obama surveying the Louisiana coast after the BP oil spill. However, it soon became apparent that in the original photo, Obama was actually speaking to somebody else (a woman, as it so happens) that the Economist had edited out of the picture. The Economist’s deputy editor Emma Duncan explained to the NYT the photo was edited “not to make a political point, but because the presence of an unknown woman would have been puzzling to readers. We don’t edit photos in order to mislead,” she continued. “I asked for Ms. Randolph to be removed because I wanted readers to focus on Mr. Obama, not because I wanted to make him look isolated. That wasn’t the point of the story.”
If a picture is edited in order to mislead the readers into thinking differently of the events depicted, it is indeed falsehood. But if a picture is edited to remove either a distraction or something that readers may find objectionable, it is no deception.
Would anybody suggest that had a pornographic poster been in the background of the said picture, any newspaper editing it out would have been deceiving its readership?
(Yes, I understand that many here do not think the a picture of Angela Merkel is inappropriate in the least. However, the distinction between a newspaper editing a picture to change the narrative of a story or merely to remove something that its readership will find inappropriate and still stands.)
That being said, the newspaper should indeed have tagged the caption with an (edited).
ZD:
“The photograph is likely copyrighted and belongs to someone. You need that persons permission to alter it”
That statement is likely (or almost certainly) made up. You need to check your facts before insinuating wrong-doing.
And besides, hevai dan es kol adam li’kaf zechus – when in doubt, we are supposed to assume the best of our fellow Jews.
MDG:
If I’m not mistaken the Hillary photo was an official White House press photo, which may not be edited.