But I have a near-religious taboo against using "The Streisand Effect", which has always sounded a little jarring to my ears, since it was coined in the 2000s, long after Streisand had ceased to be a culturally interesting figure, and now used mostly(I suspect) by people who don't really hold any perception of her heyday, just knew about her attempts to suppress the photos.
But that attempt to suppress the photos is what the Streisand Effect refers to. To the degree it might have anything to do with cultural interest, the overall lack of cultural interest, the fact that people wouldn’t otherwise be interested had she not made a big deal trying to hide it, is part of it.
Though make no mistake; for some of us, Barbra Streisand will always be of cultural interest.
Meidas is a fairly credible, if at times tiresomely partisan, source, but I don't know how they discovered this discrepancy, ie. if someone emailed it to them after the redaction had taken place(in which case, the supposed original could be a photoshop), or if one of their journalists discovered it on their own.
redacted
(ETA legal redactions, Dafyd Hell Host) (ETA formatting, DT Admin)
I'm afraid that I don't think that's sufficiently reliable for us to be comfortable republishing those allegations free from fear of litigation. We shall discuss the general principles backstage.
Apparently, photo 468 showed a picture of Trump on a desk that allegedly had an another photo of a survivor. It had been pulled down when the DOJ realized the photo of the survivor was included. It was pulled down. CBS is now reporting the alleged photo including Trump is back up with the other photo of th survivor redacted.
I can see how people could argue that just because there were two photos, one of Trump and one of the survivors on the same desk does not mean anything. We have already seen a photo of Trump with a bunch of women whose faces have been blacked out together.
I have two questions:
1) Why did Epstein allegedly collect all these photos, not just of Trump, but other famous men? I can't say there is guilt by association. But one wonders; and,
2)Why didn't any of the men allegedly in those photos wonder why the women they are seeing were much too young to be on the Epstein property unsupervised?
Comments
Though make no mistake; for some of us, Barbra Streisand will always be of cultural interest.
Now, now, some of them will be other Republican politicians or business leaders who are pro-Trump.
Meidas is a fairly credible, if at times tiresomely partisan, source, but I don't know how they discovered this discrepancy, ie. if someone emailed it to them after the redaction had taken place(in which case, the supposed original could be a photoshop), or if one of their journalists discovered it on their own.
redacted
(ETA legal redactions, Dafyd Hell Host)
(ETA formatting, DT Admin)
Doublethink, Admin
My apologies.
I can see how people could argue that just because there were two photos, one of Trump and one of the survivors on the same desk does not mean anything. We have already seen a photo of Trump with a bunch of women whose faces have been blacked out together.
I have two questions:
1) Why did Epstein allegedly collect all these photos, not just of Trump, but other famous men? I can't say there is guilt by association. But one wonders; and,
2)Why didn't any of the men allegedly in those photos wonder why the women they are seeing were much too young to be on the Epstein property unsupervised?