National Archives bow to Trump, altering reality to fit their "alternate-fact" reality

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

allisolm

Elite Member
Administrator
Jan 2, 2001
25,080
4,544
136
Claiming a department in the Trump administration is not part of the Trump administration is concerning.
I don't think they got an order to alter the picture but the archivist knew original would piss off Trump and their would be reprocussions.



I do not pretend to know what the archivist was thinking, but I am sorry he approved of it being done, whatever his reasoning was.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,017
8,545
136
This is what CNN says about that and I agree.

"It's likely no one from the White House gave the National Archives orders to alter the image. Instead, it seems the museum -- an independent organization that seeks to "cultivate public participation, and strengthen our nation's democracy through public access to high-value government records," voluntarily corrupted themselves and diluted our memory of the past to avoid controversy. But editing a photo and glossing over the fact that many demonstrators turned out to protest Trump is, itself, a political act."


Well...I don't agree with their decision, but I can see why they might have done it. They were almost in a kind of no win situation. Their goal was to promote their display/show without getting bogged down in the partisan political crossfire that permeates out EVERYTHING. If they left it in, then every right wing news outlet would jump on the story that leftist deepstaters have taken over the national archives are engaged in a partisan operation to take down poor Trump, (so unfair!) to be followed by presidential tweet and senate investigation of their department, and firing of whomever authorized the photo. It looks like the thinking was, its probably better odds to hope that no one notices the omission than to hope that no one notices the inclusion.

What they should have done is simply don't display that image at all. Pick a different image that is relevant to what is being archived. Don't censor an image in your display, as that communicates that your archive is also going to be censored.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,938
5,562
136
Several very valid questions and concerns were brought up in this thread, and every single one of them was addressed in the article. You fellows should read it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
Well...I don't agree with their decision, but I can see why they might have done it. They were almost in a kind of no win situation. Their goal was to promote their display/show without getting bogged down in the partisan political crossfire that permeates out EVERYTHING. If they left it in, then every right wing news outlet would jump on the story that leftist deepstaters have taken over the national archives are engaged in a partisan operation to take down poor Trump, (so unfair!) to be followed by presidential tweet and senate investigation of their department, and firing of whomever authorized the photo. It looks like the thinking was, its probably better odds to hope that no one notices the omission than to hope that no one notices the inclusion.

What they should have done is simply don't display that image at all. Pick a different image that is relevant to what is being archived. Don't censor an image in your display, as that communicates that your archive is also going to be censored.

While I see what you're saying here there's no way to separate the Women's Marches from protest against Trump because that was their primary motivation. It was a response to someone who was a confessed serial sex criminal becoming president. The national archives shouldn't shy away from presenting things because they are politically contentious, if they do that they end up ignoring huge swaths of history. Regardless, they should under no circumstances alter images to remove content they don't like. It would be equally wrong for them to have blurred out signs from Tea Party rallies criticizing Obama.

This is an issue with having someone as corrupt as Trump in charge though, as he's exactly the sort of person who would attempt to exact revenge on the national archives for publishing something unflattering to him. I sincerely doubt anyone from the administration pressured them to do this, eventually once a pattern of executive misconduct is established agencies corrupt themselves without any more input.

You can already see the corrosive effects of Trump's corruption all over the federal government and it's only been three years. (for example we now have NOAA giving the public false information about hurricanes to cover up for the president saying something wrong) Imagine how bad things will get after five more.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Several very valid questions and concerns were brought up in this thread, and every single one of them was addressed in the article. You fellows should read it.

Not exactly. It's perfectly obvious that the GOP will attack anybody who offers up anything that might besmirch the Divine Leader. Anybody dependent on Congressional appropriations is acutely aware of that & will avoid any confrontation. Think of it as pre-emptive revisionist history. It's the reverse of the Ukrainians being reluctant to smear Joe Biden on Trump's behalf.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Nothing Trump does or has done could be described as either subtle or profound.

It is in the way it works on all too many people. The archivist wouldn't have done this if they didn't fear retaliation. They may not have even understood their own subconscious motivation at the time.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,222
10,877
136
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control,' they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink.' "
Book was just a little premature.