US Natl Archive Blurs Signs Critical of Dear Leader

THOR, Son of ODIN(2)

“The Archives acknowledged this week that it made multiple alterations to the photo of the 2017 Women’s March showcased at the museum, blurring signs held by marchers that were critical of Trump.”




https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/national-archives-exhibit-blurs-images-critical-of-president-trump/2020/01/17/71d8e80c-37e3-11ea-9541-9107303481a4_story.html




SaveComment81Like
Comments (81)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catkinZ8a

WA Poo

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
THOR, Son of ODIN(2)

Deflection.

Must support erasing our history.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,maifleur,others(8a)

“Washington Post obscures image of their text with bright white screen, admits that it requires financial commitment to access its information, ironically declares ‘democracy dies in darkness’”

(Sorry Thor, I can’t help it it really drives me crazy that WaPo does this. I would love to learn about this issue so will go looking for another source.)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jerzeegirl (FL zone 9B)(9b)

This makes me so made. The National Archives is supposed to preserve history not obscure it. I posted a link of the story on Mediaite.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/national-archives-censors-anti-trump-messages-from-2017-womens-march-photo-to-avoid-political-controversy/

9 Likes Save     Thanked by THOR, Son of ODIN
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,maifleur,others(8a)

I accessed it through the Houston Chronicle but when I came here to post the link it was the WaPo link. ??

This is government censorship.

4 Likes Save     Thanked by THOR, Son of ODIN
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,maifleur,others(8a)

Actually no. It wasn’t.

I am not a government entity, and flagging distasteful comments is the way that this *private* organization has given their *private* users to help manage the forum.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

and to some of us it is censorship.

If I flagged every distasteful comment, there would not be much left to read. I believe in freedom of speech.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,maifleur,others(8a)

and to some of us it is censorship.

If I flagged every distasteful comment, there would not be much left to read. I believe in freedom of speech.

———

I get that.

What about the National Archive’s decision then? Do you believe that to be censorship?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

What about the National Archive’s decision then? Do you believe that to be censorship?

I just heard of this in this thread. Not sure why they would blur the words? Not like the Washington Post loves Trump.

Do you believe that we should take down monuments then?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo


Delilah66

queenmargo, continue to hold yourself higher than all others. Let freedom ring.

I don't hold myself higher than anyone. I just speak my peace, unless someone flags it;(

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,maifleur,others(8a)

I believe that as a vanquished enemy of the United States, confederate monuments should never have been allowed to be erected in public, and certainly never on federal, state, county, or municipal property.

So to the end of rectifying that error in judgment yes, I do believe they should be taken down.

If private collectors want to display them on private property, I don’t think anyone can object.

(That does not include the Confederate flag which also should not fly in the Inited States imo)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

Let's get this straight, you flag distasteful comments but are upset that WA PO blurred words? How is that ?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

The National Archives is part of the US government, and censoring speech.

Not comparable at all to what happens on a commercial website.

9 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

I was talking about ones personal take on things not comparing sites and government.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

This thread is about a part of the US government that is censoring historical events.

What is an archive worth if it is consciously altering the records of our history?

8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rina

What is an archive worth if it is consciously altering the records of our history?

Precisely nothing. It's a repository of rubbish.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

It appears the subject of this discussion has eluded somebody?

I'm wondering who @ the National Archives is responsible for the decision to do this? It does seem like censorship for sure.

And as far as paywalls go, newspapers gotta make a living too, so they can pay their reporters, and $1 subscription doesn't seem like much, considering all the things we can waste our money on, so I won't complain about it.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

"It appears the subject of this discussion has eluded somebody?"

PSA

Hard to even know what the discussion is when someone has decided that they should be the self-appointed forum monitor. We see only the part that PSA allows.

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday


PSA

Just because you have the power, doesn't mean you should use it.

There's even a phrase for that: "Abuse of Power".

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

PSA


https://www.google.com/search?q=kant%27s+categorical+imperative&rlz=1C1PRFI_enUS855US855&oq=kant%27s+categorical+imperative&aqs=chrome..69i57.2478j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


It's a good rule to live by. A good rule to keep in mind when you appoint yourself to a position of power.

Loosely translated, it means, "What if everyone did what you're doing. Is that OK?"

And, assuming the comment is still there by the time you get here, Margo summed it up pretty well as it applies to this forum.

Margo:

"If I flagged every distasteful comment, there would not be much left to read. I believe in freedom of speech."

That's Kant's Categorical Imperative. A most basic.... preceding your own do-good PSA motives.... a most basic Ethical Rule.

Higher Authority. Good is more than what YOU think it should be.

Hay


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday


PSA


What this world needs is not more Do-Gooders. I can easily scroll on by something I don't like. I can never recover what someone has decided we all should never see.

Hay

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

It also appears the 'edit' button has eluded somebody...

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Carol:

"It also appears the 'edit' button has eluded somebody..."

Not to worry. If one of my comments appears distasteful to you--- you, too, have the power:

"flagging distasteful comments is the way that this *private* organization has given their *private* users to help manage the forum."


Aren't we lucky to have people around to shield the rest of us from distasteful comments?

Hay





1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

"Inside every "progressive"/Socialist/communist is a Totalitarian, screaming to be free"

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

"I am not a government entity, and flagging distasteful comments is the way that this *private* organization has given their *private* users to help manage the forum."

Personally, I think that's an incredibly distasteful comment.

It leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

YUCK!

BLECH!

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

"I am not a government entity, and flagging distasteful comments is the way that this *private* organization has given their *private* users to help manage the forum."

"Help Manage" turns into Tyranny in the blink of an eye.

Hope this is not too distasteful.

But, then again,

De gustibus non est disputandum!!!

"The implication is that everyone's personal preferences are merely subjective opinions that cannot be right or wrong, so they should never be argued about as if they were."




Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

29 comments on this thread right this moment. This will be number 30.

Hope you can see some of them by the time you get here.

Good Morning from here in the Land of the Free!

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Wham.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Miss Lindsey (since the topic is off OP) -

Would you explain this? My take is you are opposed to media charging for their work. (Subscriptions to text-based media has a long history.)

Or, were you asking that some substance of a paywall article be shared if it's part of the OP?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle

Carol, thanks for your sensible comment on this thread. I was beginning to think everyone had gone down the rabbit hole.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,maifleur,others(8a)

Thanks Ziemia, I don’t object at all to media sources charging for their work. I understand why they need to.

What I object to is specifically how WaPo chooses to handle that. Allowing the whole article to load, including pictures, and then a few seconds later obscuring the screen is obnoxious imo. It especially grates on me given “democracy dies in darkness.” Which do they care more about, shining a light on democracy or getting my buck? Other sources do better at this I think.

I also feel for people who have no access to a credit card; should they not have the same access to information? How can that be made available to them?

I much prefer the way the guardian handles it; ask for donations at the end of the article. Or the way others do, a certain number of free articles per month.

It’s just a personal quibble, it was unnecessary for me to post it so I probably should have stayed quiet about it.

oh PS no, I don’t think OPs should have to post parts of the article. I appreciate when they do but I have a responsibility to research for myself too.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Re OP:

I don't see how you can explain that March with blurred signs. Makes it seem like all these people - with a majority of women - gathered to celebrate.

ETA: this explains it well:

"There's no reason for the National Archives to ever digitally alter a historic photograph," Rice University historian Douglas Brinkley said. "If they don't want to use a specific image, then don't use it. But to confuse the public is reprehensible. The head of the Archives has to very quickly fix this damage. A lot of history is messy, and there's zero reason why the Archives can't be upfront about a photo from a women's march."

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/478903-national-archives-says-it-altered-womens-march-photo-to-blur

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rina

Hay, innocuous question: I have no idea what that ugly blurred scroll you posted means. Perhaps it is close to being a meme in the sense of what I understand that word to have meant when it was coined, but if so I have a cultural block on it. Could you explain?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

I have no idea what that ugly blurred scroll you posted means.

I believe that's a painting of Jesus which was recently "restored". A modern day Abstract restoration?....or just a farsighted restorer.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

I'm not Hay but I believe that same image has been used numerous times as an example of someone 'fixing' an historical image. It's a 'restoration' of an old painting that apparently went awry.

The questions may change, but by gum, the answers stay the same...?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
blfenton

I'm confused (and I'm blaming my wicked head cold). So the National Archives have edited a picture by blurring the messages on the signs. Does that not censure or obliterate the historic significance of the event? What else in their keeping do they edit and for what reason;

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

Good for them for recognizing the mistake.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
patriciae_gw(07)

I got all the way to the bottom here to finally see the facts posted by MomH. for some ghastly reason they had put up a display and altered the photo without saying they had done so. any public seeing this display was getting a bowdlerized version of history and that is totally unacceptable. At least they were not altering the actual archives but representing this mess as being a copy of an archived photograph is so wrong that it is hard to express it.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
blfenton


US National Archives

✔@USNatArchives

Replying to @USNatArchives

We have removed the current display and will replace it as soon as possible with one that uses the unaltered image.

We apologize, and will immediately start a thorough review of our exhibit policies and procedures so that this does not happen again.


Good, but it would only take 5 minutes to download an unaltered image from the internet and tape it to the back of the turned around photo

I did some googling to see if their actions were to preserve funding and so not wanting to be critical of trump in anyway. I couldn't find anything specific.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

Interestingly, I saw it reported that someone @ the Nat'l Archives said they did so to be non-partisan.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

blfenton:


"I did some googling to see if their actions were to preserve funding and so not wanting to be critical of trump in anyway. I couldn't find anything specific."

Did you look at the OP?


From the OP:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/national-archives-exhibit-blurs-images-critical-of-president-trump/2020/01/17/71d8e80c-37e3-11ea-9541-9107303481a4_story.html



"The Archives said the decision to obscure the words was made as the exhibit was being developed by agency managers and museum staff members. It said David S. Ferriero, the archivist of the United States who was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009, participated in talks regarding the exhibit and supports the decision to edit the photo."

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

carol:

"Interestingly, I saw it reported that someone @ the Nat'l Archives said they did so to be non-partisan."

Did you look at the OP?

From the OP:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/national-archives-exhibit-blurs-images-critical-of-president-trump/2020/01/17/71d8e80c-37e3-11ea-9541-9107303481a4_story.html


As a non-partisan, non-political federal agency, we blurred references to the President’s name on some posters, so as not to engage in current political controversy,” Archives spokeswoman Miriam Kleiman said in an emailed statement. “Our mission is to safeguard and provide access to the nation’s most important federal records, and our exhibits are one way in which we connect the American people to those records. Modifying the image was an attempt on our part to keep the focus on the records.”

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle



2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday


chipotle:




Did anyone actually look at the OP link?

"The decision to blur references to women’s genitals was made because the museum hosts many groups of students and young people and the words could be perceived as inappropriate, Kleiman said in the statement.

Kleiman said the National Archives “only alters images in exhibits when they are used as graphic design components.”

“We do not alter images or documents that are displayed as artifacts in exhibitions,” she said. “In this case, the image is part of a promotional display, not an artifact.


Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

Since I do not have a subscription, I was not able to read the article. I read the quote from Kleiman elsewhere.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

The movie system of rating...Orwellian step to keep my 5 year old from seeing hard core porn?


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

"Since I do not have a subscription, I was not able to read the article. I read the quote from Kleiman elsewhere".

Who needs the facts to have an opinion?

I don't have a subscription either.

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Neils:

"Have you ever been to the archives?

The excuses, here and from the Archives are pretty lame"

Did anyone actually look at the OP link?

"The Archives said the decision to obscure the words was made as the exhibit was being developed by agency managers and museum staff members. It said David S. Ferriero, the archivist of the United States who was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009, participated in talks regarding the exhibit and supports the decision to edit the photo."

Take it up with Obama the next time you run into him.

Hay



1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle

Without nonsense to share some would be empty handed.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

chipotle:


"Without nonsense to share some would be empty handed."

Funny.

Like sharing the actual comments from the OP link?


Really funny.


You and Thor can work it out.

Hay

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
blfenton

Your response to me has nothing to do with what I said.

Well, if they claim to be non-partisan, by blurring out his name and all other images that they disagreed with, they became partisan.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Blfenton:


"I did some googling to see if their actions were to preserve funding and so not wanting to be critical of trump in anyway. I couldn't find anything specific."

Did you look at the OP?

"Your response to me has nothing to do with what I said."

Did you look at the OP?

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle

Your response to me has nothing to do with what I said.


That's why it's best to ignore.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

chipotle:

"That's why it's best to ignore."

Good point. If we're going to be discussing something from an article, it's best not to know what was said in the article.

Hay

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday


blfenton:

"Your response to me has nothing to do with what I said."


blfenton then adds an edit after a while.....

"Well, if they claim to be non-partisan, by blurring out his name and all other images that they disagreed with, they became partisan."

Funny.

Glad I could give you some actual facts from the OP to work with.

Hay


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Chipotle:

"That's why it's best to ignore."

More funny. Easier said than done, isn't it?

Show us how to do that.

More funny.

Hay

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
patriciae_gw(07)

This is a common mistake. When you don't actually understand what you are doing you can make this kind of mistake. This is our history and it has to be presented true to what actually happened. If you have misgivings about tender kids then put up a different picture.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

LOL LOL.. fun read;))

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday



Funny.

National archives apologizes and....

Two of my comments seem to have disappeared.




Very Stalinesque.

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

I am wondering why they ever thought altered pictures were ever acceptable for the archives? Is it another case of not wanting to upset Trump?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
blfenton

I never take for granted that whatever an OP posts as a link is factual or not.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ohiomom

I can never recover what someone has decided we all should never see.

.....which exactly what the National Archives decided to do. This is a government agency that is responsible for storing historical records, and they decided to alter history.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

According to the reporting I read, the photo in question was not from the archives, but a commercial photo used for a display...?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday


blfenton:


"I did some googling to see if their actions were to preserve funding and so not wanting to be critical of trump in anyway. I couldn't find anything specific."


chipotle:


Neils:

"Have you ever been to the archives?

The excuses, here and from the Archives are pretty lame"


Kathy:

"I am wondering why they ever thought altered pictures were ever acceptable for the archives? Is it another case of not wanting to upset Trump?"

Carol:

"Interestingly, I saw it reported that someone @ the Nat'l Archives said they did so to be non-partisan"

ohiomom

"I can never recover what someone has decided we all should never see.

.....which exactly what the National Archives decided to do. This is a government agency that is responsible for storing historical records, and they decided to alter history."


Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

You keep asking the same questions. You keep ignoring the answers straight from the article itself.

"If Peat and Repeat were sitting on a fence and Peat jumped off, who would be left?"


REPEAT: (In case you missed it the first couple times around)

"The Archives said the decision to obscure the words was made as the exhibit was being developed by agency managers and museum staff members. It said David S. Ferriero, the archivist of the United States who was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009, participated in talks regarding the exhibit and supports the decision to edit the photo."

...

As a non-partisan, non-political federal agency, we blurred references to the President’s name on some posters, so as not to engage in current political controversy,” Archives spokeswoman Miriam Kleiman said in an emailed statement. “Our mission is to safeguard and provide access to the nation’s most important federal records, and our exhibits are one way in which we connect the American people to those records. Modifying the image was an attempt on our part to keep the focus on the records.”


...

"The decision to blur references to women’s genitals was made because the museum hosts many groups of students and young people and the words could be perceived as inappropriate, Kleiman said in the statement.

Kleiman said the National Archives “only alters images in exhibits when they are used as graphic design components.”

“We do not alter images or documents that are displayed as artifacts in exhibitions,” she said. “In this case, the image is part of a promotional display, not an artifact.

Hay




Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Mom'H:

"Maybe if the :comment is posted in ALL CAPS and BOLD, people will "listen"

Yelling louder is always so effective"


chipotle

"Without nonsense to share some would be empty handed."

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

We can talk about me if you want. Then we talk about Margo if you want. We can talk about posting styles if you want.....

But, if you want to actually talk about what was actually said in the article, that's the hard part, it seems.


Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

There’s a pattern here. Trump got upset last year when worldwide threat assessment was given to public so they won’t tell us this year. Now it’s pictures in the archives they are altering. Trump is consolidating his power. It’s very Putinesque in my opinion.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Kathy:

"There’s a pattern here."


Hay:

You keep asking the same questions. You keep ignoring the answers straight from the article itself.

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

superficial vs insightful

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Delilah66

Let the National Archives know you object to censoring our country’s documents. Contact:

https://www.archives.gov/contact?fbclid=IwAR3ajzRIxHBFlfkjO_VMEwzT0CbXOaX3tT9EjJuMDEZEHGb3goDAnnVU3GQ


ETA: I was told the comments they received not just through the linked page were responsible for the changes made and they are still receiving more objections to the photos.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

"Let the National Archives know you object to censoring our country’s documents."

It's a promotional poster.

Obtained from Getty Images.

Hardly ranks as censoring our country's documents.

Does Obama really have a red, white and blue face?

You Lie!

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jerzeegirl (FL zone 9B)(9b)

oh for crying out loud. really????

Museum professionals know that alterations of this kind are wrong - these guys must have been under some extreme pressure. I have an art museum background and so I am familiar with the rules for reproducing images. When producing art images in catalogs, using even a detail of an artwork is frowned upon since it is not really representative of the artwork. This is the same thing. Using an altered photo does not represent the truth. Doesn't really matter where the photo came from; as long as it's in a National Archives exhibit, they are responsible. And telling the truth is their mission.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,maifleur,others(8a)

And it’s significant that the part that was blurred is the name of the President. That is the part that provides important historical context and implies a political agenda to the March. It is also the part that is value neutral, in other words there are no positive or negative impressions attached to the word (of course I mean apart from an individual’s opinion about the man himself, which is not important from a historical viewpoint).

If the object was not to offend delicate sensibilities, should not the blurred words be “God” because not everyone is religious or “hate” because it expresses a strongly negative emotion about a specific person? If the sign was left to read “____ _____ Trump” there would be nothing to cause division and the historical context would remain in place.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Delilah66

Hay

Did the National Archives have anything to do with “a promotional poster obtained from Getty Images.“?

The National Archives photoshopped a actual photograph and admitted it was wrong. That poster of President Obama was created that way. It wasn’t presented to the public as a real photographic image.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Delilah;

"Hay

Did the National Archives have anything to do with “a promotional poster obtained from Getty Images.“?

The National Archives photoshopped a actual photograph and admitted it was wrong. That poster of President Obama was created that way. It wasn’t presented to the public as a real photographic image."

You're trying to make a Federal Case out of a Molehill.

Hay



Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Jerzee:


"oh for crying out loud. really????

Museum professionals know that alterations of this kind are wrong - these guys must have been under some extreme pressure. I have an art museum background and so I am familiar with the rules for reproducing images. When producing art images in catalogs, using even a detail of an artwork is frowned upon since it is not really representative of the artwork. This is the same thing. Using an altered photo does not represent the truth. Doesn't really matter where the photo came from; as long as it's in a National Archives exhibit, they are responsible. And telling the truth is their mission."

Evidence presented in the Federal Case you're building.

They admitted it was not the best way to approach this.

Big deal.

Not a Federal Case.

A Molehill.

We finally, after a lot of High Drama, have arrived at the foot of the Molehill.

Funny.

Hay


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Delilah66

You're big on federal cases and mole hills today.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Tilly Teabag

I disapprove of this blurring of photographs by a government body for political purposes.

I am not surprised with this President, however. Seems consistent.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

chipotle:




miss lindsey:


"This is government censorship."


...


What about the National Archive’s decision then? Do you believe that to be censorship?


Nancy:



This thread is about a part of the US government that is censoring historical events.


What is an archive worth if it is consciously altering the records of our history?


Rina:


Precisely nothing. It's a repository of rubbish.


carolb:


I'm wondering who @ the National Archives is responsible for the decision to do this? It does seem like censorship for sure.


chipotle:

Carol, thanks for your sensible comment on this thread. I was beginning to think everyone had gone down the rabbit hole.


blfenton:


I did some googling to see if their actions were to preserve funding and so not wanting to be critical of trump in anyway. I couldn't find anything specific.


blfenton

Your response to me has nothing to do with what I said.


Well, if they claim to be non-partisan, by blurring out his name and all other images that they disagreed with, they became partisan.


Kathy

I am wondering why they ever thought altered pictures were ever acceptable for the archives? Is it another case of not wanting to upset Trump?


ohiomom



.....which exactly what the National Archives decided to do. This is a government agency that is responsible for storing historical records, and they decided to alter history.


Kathy

There’s a pattern here. Trump got upset last year when worldwide threat assessment was given to public so they won’t tell us this year. Now it’s pictures in the archives they are altering. Trump is consolidating his power. It’s very Putinesque in my opinion.


Ziemia(6a)



superficial vs insightful


Delilah66

Let the National Archives know you object to censoring our country’s documents. Contact:


jerzeegirl(9b)

oh for crying out loud. really????


Museum professionals know that alterations of this kind are wrong - these guys must have been under some extreme pressure.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

God's in his heaven—

All's right with the world!


They have found the culprit and extracted a confession from him. It's just as you all expected:

An Obama operative.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/national-archives-replaces-altered-womens-march-photo-with-original-version/2020/01/23/e910a5c2-3e05-11ea-8872-5df698785a4e_story.html

Ferriero, who has led the agency since being appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009, said in the statement that he took full responsibility for the decision and the broader concerns it has raised. The decision to blur the photograph, he said, “was made without any external direction whatsoever.”

Hay







Save    
Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories
Most Popular 10 Steps for Saying Goodbye to Sentimental Objects
Are keepsakes cluttering your space and your life? Consider this approach for letting go and moving on
Full Story
Most Popular Togetherness Take 2: Is a Cohousing Community for You?
Missing that sense of connection? Consider the new breed of neighborhood with a communal bent
Full Story
Organizing Living With Less: Do You Have Too Much Stuff?
To help her clients pare back, a professional organizer asks them 3 questions about the things they own
Full Story
With the help of our experienced experts, remodeling will no longer be a hassle for you to handle. Virginia... Read More