Nose for News by Sarah Stultz

 

I was shocked to read a news article Saturday in which the National Archives said it made a mistake when it blurred images of anti-Trump signs used in an exhibit on women’s suffrage.

The independent agency preserves government and historical records but acknowledged in a statement that it made multiple alterations to a photo of the 2017 Women’s March on Pennsylvania Avenue the day after President Donald Trump’s inauguration. It stated it blurred signs held by marchers that were critical of Trump and that referenced women’s anatomy.

Entrusted with maintaining factual records of history, I was shocked that the Archives would go to such lengths to alter the photo taken by a news organization.

We at the Tribune have relied on the Archives for historical photos on a few occasions in the past, and it makes me question whether this has happened previously.

Upon further reading, the Archives spokeswoman said the organization does not alter images or documents that are displayed as artifacts in exhibitions. In this case, the image was a part of a promotional display.

Regardless of how the alterations came about, the photo was displayed as factual, without any notation that it had been altered.

This is troublesome.

As a newspaper, we do not make alterations to our photos. We believe that it is ethically wrong to alter a photo unless it be for a photo illustration, and then it would be clearly stated as such. We hold this notion so strictly that we believe that altering photos is in essence like altering history.

While I personally may not have liked some of the words on the signs at the rally either, the National Archives could have chosen another photo from the rally for the promotional materials over printing a photo with the altered signs.

Photographs taken by news organizations at events like these are capturing moments of time, and it is vital that the integrity of these photos be maintained.

Sarah Stultz is the managing editor of the Tribune.