Jump to content

Doctoring photos in US National Archives


Recommended Posts

Very interesting news story today regarding the doctoring of a photo placed in the US National Archives and used in an exhibition.  A photo from Gxxx of the woman's march had a sign stating 'God Hates Trump' in the crowd photo.  The word 'Trump' was blurred out/doctored by the National Archives and/or Gxxx.  The blame is going back and forth and will be interesting to see how this dicussion pans out.  CNN reported they reached out to Gxxx who apparently gave approval to have the photo altered....whether that was the case or not is still not determined.  The argument made by the US National Archives for the removale of the name 'Trump' on the sign is that some people may have been offended as it was part of an exhibition! Historic archives being doctored by the National Archive because they may offend someone is scary on many levels.   This takes politics entering the realm of photography to an entirely new level.  This doesn't help in terms of the US discussion on fake news which seems to be part of an overall strategic plan to make everyone question reality.  Photos capturing a specific point in time  for historic archives being doctored for political reasons by Gexxx is a major issue but just as bad is the National Archives is now altering history and in turn reality. Not sure why I am posting this other than to add to discussions about the changing landscape of photography. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well let’s avoid a political or religious discussion. Other than the sign referenced above, also signs with female anatomy words were also blurred out out for this exhibition.  I can more understand the latter being blurred for the exhibition since I believe this was open to people of all ages.  I am much more concerned if the photos were altered forever in the archives....I don’t think that has happened.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not being political at all and not knowing the original image. the whole point here is the altering of an obvious editorial image. If a photographer altered an editorial image for whatever reason they would more likely or not have their account deleted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, noelbennett said:

Apparently they have now reversed that decision-as per this tweet

 

https://twitter.com/USNatArchives/status/1218613275656687621?s=20

 

 

i actually love the idea of someone on Twitter, that for historical purpose, Both images should be kept, with note about the modified one. 

 

https://twitter.com/jmwhit47/status/1218617557541720064

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BobD said:

Not being political at all and not knowing the original image. the whole point here is the altering of an obvious editorial image. If a photographer altered an editorial image for whatever reason they would more likely or not have their account deleted.


The altering was blurring out the “offensive” words....so it was obvious that there were words under the blur.  If they had removed the words so it looked like they never existed, then it would have been much worse.  But it sounds like they have reversed course and will remove the blurs and put photo back up and show it as it was taken.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The war against the press, in fact against everyone's freedom of speech in this country, and against people having actual facts upon which they can then base their opinions, is frightening.  That, coupled with how much data corporations and the government collect on all of us, I think even George Orwell would be truly frightened. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, John Morrison said:

 

Ah... the irony...

Story is from 2009 - you can now buy 1984 on kindle (at least I am seeing it for sale in the UK) although I do already have it in straightforward epub form I can read on other readers on my phone.

To me it is far more concerning that an official government agency is actively editing current news footage to comply with "sensibiliities" that is that a big company actually responded to a reported copyright breach.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.