Agnostic.com

7 7

LINK National Archives exhibit blurs images critical of President Trump - The Washington Post

I am an historian and I'm disgusted beyond words over this.

'The large color photograph that greets visitors to a National Archives exhibit celebrating the centennial of women’s suffrage shows a massive crowd filling Pennsylvania Avenue NW for the Women’s March on Jan. 21, 2017, the day after President Trump’s inauguration.

The 49-by-69-inch photograph is a powerful display. Viewed from one perspective, it shows the 2017 march. Viewed from another angle, it shifts to show a 1913 black-and-white image of a women’s suffrage march also on Pennsylvania Avenue. The display links momentous demonstrations for women’s rights more than a century apart on the same stretch of pavement.

But a closer look reveals a different story.

The Archives acknowledged in a statement 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. Words on signs that referenced women’s anatomy were also blurred.

In the original version of the 2017 photograph, taken by Getty Images photographer Mario Tama, the street is packed with marchers carrying a variety of signs, with the Capitol in the background. In the Archives version, at least four of those signs are altered.

A placard that proclaims “God Hates Trump” has “Trump” blotted out so that it reads “God Hates.” A sign that reads “Trump & GOP — Hands Off Women” has the word Trump blurred out.

Signs with messages that referenced women’s anatomy — which were prevalent at the march — are also digitally altered. One that reads “If my vagina could shoot bullets, it’d be less REGULATED” has “vagina” blurred out. And another that says “This Pussy Grabs Back” has the word “Pussy” erased.

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.'

(I can only imagine what his so-called "participation and support" consisted of. Probably something along the lines of: "If we put these pictures up unaltered, Trump will have a flameout and want to fire the entire staff of the Archive... so I guess if this is the only way you can think of to at least get some pictures out there where the public can see them, then that's what we'll have to do. Honestly, I thought he would have been gone by now..." )

'“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.”

Archive officials did not respond to a request to provide examples of previous instances in which the Archives altered a document or photograph so as not to engage in political controversy.'

I bet.

UPDATED:

Jan. 18 6:58 p.m. EST

'Officials at the National Archives on Saturday said they had removed from display an altered photo from the 2017 Women’s March in which signs held by marchers critical of President Trump had been blurred.

In tweets on Saturday, the museum apologized and said: “We made a mistake.”

“As the National Archives of the United States, we are and have always been completely committed to preserving our archival holdings, without alteration,” one of the tweets said.

“This photo is not an archival record held by the @usnatarchives, but one we licensed to use as a promotional graphic,” it said in another tweet. “Nonetheless, we were wrong to alter the image.”'

Thanks to @bingst for the heads-up on this late development!

Paul4747 8 Jan 18
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

7 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

How would any blurred image represent anything in the National Archives? To keep things blurred shows control and fear and you cannot get the real picture. Stop fearing Trump and just remove him by any means possible.

1

The blurred photo has been replaced with the original with apologies by the National Archives board.

Thanks! This is obviously moving fast.

@Paul4747 Happened just today.

2

Alter history as it is made. Honesty is NOT evidently policy.

2

Thanks for the link, I've updated the post with the latest! Good to see integrity triumph in the end!

2

Wrong

bobwjr Level 10 Jan 18, 2020
1

Well I used to have some regard for Getty.

Not so much now. You do not alter history. That is the point of it. In fact for an exhibition it would be far more relevant to NOT alter it.

Toadying isn't becoming.

It was the Archives that altered the photo, not Getty.

@bingst oh that really sucks ( sugar was low btw). Oops.

3

"A Getty spokeswoman, Anne Flanagan, confirmed that the image was licensed by the National Archives Foundation but said in an email Friday evening that Getty was still determining whether it approved alterations to the image."

This is what I wondered about. Usually, such a license prohibits alteration without further consent. I'm guessing Getty didn't actually approve the alterations. Anyway, the National Archives shouldn't be whitewashing history... for whatever reason.

Indeed. Suppose they get hold of Trump's office recordings (you know he has them). Are they going to be full of [expletive deleted] because they don't want to offend people who might read them?

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:450593
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.