Topic: Media Research Center
In a Jan. 20 post, the Media Research Center's Brad Wilmouth complained that on CNN, "weekend anchor Fredricka Whitfield touted 'shock and outrage' over the National Archives blurring part of a sign from the annual anti-Trump Women's March declaring 'God hates Trump.'" Wilmouth huffed in response:
CNN not only had trouble imagining "God hates Trump" could be seen as offensive, they could not imagine that it was quite partisan for the National Archives to be promoting contemporary images of feminist protest against the current president as part of an impressive historical trajectory in line with the women's suffrage movement of the last century.
So historical accuracy to properly show protests against Trump as in league with protests throughout American history is "partisan"? Wilmouth quoted nobody in his post who likened the anti-Trump protest to "the women's suffrage movement," but he didn't explain that the photo was presented with a photo from a 1913 women's suffrage march. Nor did he mention that the juxtaposition of the photos was not done with "partisan" intent but, rather, "to illustrate the ongoing struggles of women fighting for their interests,"and the blurring out of Trump's name was an attempt by the Archives to avoid "current political controversy."
Wilmouth did not address the point that an entity calling itself the National Archives maybe should not be censoring anything. Apparently Wilmouth is down with official censorship if it offends a Republican president.
