DY
Its not the same as cropping because with cropping people it is apparent that somebody may have been to the side. However depicting a sea of male world leaders gives the impression either that there are no female world leaders (Which some say is their goal, Im not sure) or that female world leaders werent there. Both of these are sheker.
(As it is It is quite striking that in the sea of world leaders they only had to remove 3 (!) women).
However I do think I may be coming around to your point of view. There is no question that It wouldve been better to print another picture (as you agreed). As far as falsehood, maybe you have a point I am not sure what the avergae Hamavaser reader thinks when he glances at the picture. Does s/he think there are no female world leaders or that they werent present? That is what I assumed at first glance, but on further reflection maybe you are right. MAybe they realize that they are looking at an edited picture (which begs the question why pictures are needed at all) in which case the sheker would be mitigated somewhat. (not completly though as it still doesnt smell right and there is no question some readers will view it as an honest depiction)
It is actually the Artscroll anaology that got me thinking. Are they dishonest? Depends what they are percieved/billed as If they are depicted/percieved as true biographies by and large they are dishonest, but I think most people reading them know fully well that they are more haigrophic then historic in which case they do a great job depicting haigrophy,
As you said “Any frum publication by definition sometimes has a standard higher than telling it as it is or was (by omission), because in many cases it is assur to do so (l”h, bizayon). Since that is the case, though, an omission is not a misrepresentation, because it is the expectation, according to the context. “
This goes for both Hamevaser and Artscroll assuming that the readership is aware of the expected misrepresentation.