A recent story I heard about a popular (Orthodox / neo-Chareidi) magazine with an English (primary distribution in the U.S.) and Hebrew (primary distribution in Israel) version:
The English version had a picture of Auschwitz, with some faces blurred. This caused an outrage because the faces blurred were of women. The magazine’s apologetic response was that the tempered picture was initiated by the Israeli magazine, who blurred the images of women according to their policy. When received by the U.S. counterpart, it was assumed that the blurring was done to protect the privacy of those individuals, and not because of other factors that are not in line with the U.S. branch’s policy.
The story could just as easily have read the following:
The Hebrew version had a picture of Auschwitz, with some faces blurred. This caused an outrage because the public has the right to see who was there. The magazine’s apologetic response was that the tempered picture initiated from the American magazine, who blurred the images of people to protect their privacy, according to their policy. When received by the Israeli counterpart, it was assumed that the blurring was done to blur out pictures of women, and not because of other factors that are not in line with the Israeli branch’s policy…