Iconic WWII photo canceled, then uncanceled

LOL. Please do provide some evidence that the most important difference is political party. I think you're forgetting the process that has to take place in the US to even secure an indictment, yet alone a conviction. Indictments are brought by grand juries, not 'democrats'. The grand jury in this case consisted of a random selection of Floridians, not a demographic that would be expected to bend to the will of Democrats. So again, your narrative doesn't hold any water.

That's not a statement that makes any legal sense. Simply taking something is not 'stealing'. In the US the definition of stealing is 'the taking of another person's personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property'. So if you return it when asked, it's very hard to be convicted of stealing, since the return suggests strongly that there wasn't an intent to deprive the use of that property. But in neither of these cases are we talking about stealing. We're talking about the law on Wilful Retention of National Defense Information, 18 USC 793. To secure a conviction it's necessary to prove that the retention was wilful (the key is in the word 'wilful') - that is, with intent. As with the case if it were stealing (which it is not), handing it back when asked makes it just about impossible to prove. If Trump had been sensible, he'd just have given it back, and it would all have gone away. That is what his lawyers apparently advised him to do. It's not surprising that so many lawyers in the end come to the conclusion that representing him is a fool's errand.

Your problem is that you simply don't do your due diligence checking up the facts. Clearly you are not familiar with the law under which Trump has been charged, you didn't take the time or effort to find out. You just took your opinions from your favoured echo chamber. It's not my fault that you don't know the basics of the case, that you make statements that are easily demonstrated to be false, and then try to explain them away as 'sarcasm'. It's an MO I recognise. You know it well. Confusing Biden and Obama. That was 'Sarcasm'. As was confusing Pelosi and Haley. And so on. No one minds the odd mistake. But when it's a 'mistake' in the cause of spinning a malign, corrupt agenda, you expect to be called on it.

I suspect you're on rocky legal ground here, once again. Firstly, anyone in the USA has the right to see government documents under the Freedom of Information Act, unless those documents are specifically excluded for reasons such as national security. That's as far as 'rights' go. The rest of it is based on a system of classification and clearance, not 'rights'. Do you have any evidence that Biden had any documents for which he didn't have clearance when he obtained the documents? Do you have any evidence that the clearances for the documents that Trump had were for him personally, rather than for the office holder of the President? If not, he should not have had them after he ceased to be president. But to be prosecuted it needed to be proven that he 'wilfully retained' them, and he would have had a cast-iron defence had he returned them when asked. Hence the grand jury would not have indicted him. As in so many things, he is his own worst enemy.

Sorry, you've lost me again.

I don't care about the technicalities, I only care about what I see when I look at the image that you posted in the OP. Viewers will form their impression of the image on the basis of what they see with their eyes, not what kind of camera it was, not what different images in the series look like.

The problem is identifying the word 'exposed' with how light or dark the image looks. If an image is too light or too dark it's wrongly processed for its exposure. If the exposure selected fails to make effective use of the characteristic curve of the medium (whether digital or film) it's incorrectly exposed. 'Correct exposure' has a precise meaning, established by Hurter and Driffield. 'Effectively', 'creatively' , 'expressively' don't have any precise meaning, so take them as you like,. though I suspect that they all refer to processing rather than exposure. To me to load everything into exposure seems like playing a round of golf using only the putter. An interesting challenge, but is it worthwhile?

Indeed it does. I guess they've all been framed by the deep state.

I'm trying hard not to escalate this discussion, but you keep on accusing me of dishonesty. Please stop. I'm not pretending anything. If I missed the point it is because you didn't make the point. Let me summarise the discussion as I see it.
i) You have provided two instances where editors/curators have made decisions on the use of images that you disagree with.
ii) We are agreed that the editors have the right to make those decisions, even if you disagree with them.
iii) I have said that I think one of the decisions was a bit silly, whilst the other I can see, based not on how the image was taken but what it conveys to me when I look at it.
That seems to me to be the long and short of it.

I'm beginning to get upset with that. Stop accusing me of 'pretending' when I am pretending nothing. The whole thing is based on your idea that what you are saying is the inarguable truth, so that anyone who argues with it must be pretending. The fact is that most of what you are saying is filled with fallacies, is un-evidenced and is extremely poorly reasoned. When I politely point out where those are you accuse me of dishonesty. That in itself is dishonest.

The fact that the SC wrote that in his report doesn't not mean that he could prove it in a court of law, and I would guess he knows that. In the case the Biden returned the documents when asked, a jury (which is the trier of fact, not the special counsel) would likely conclude that indicated that the retention was not wilful. And in fact if you look at his testimony, that is what he actually says, "We did not, however, identify evidence that rose to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the evidence fell short of that standard I declined to recommend that he be prosecuted." What he's saying is simple - a prosecution would not have been successful, in his opinion. That's how the law works. If a prosecutor doesn't think a prosecution will be successful, they don't prosecute. In the US he has to convince a grand jury before he can prosecute. It's a good system in that regard. As I said, all Trump had to do to avoid prosecution was to hand the things back, first when asked, or if then, when subpoenaed. He was give a long rope and he chose to hang himself by it.

And by the way, you still have submitted zero evidence that the important difference is political party.

When it actually comes to arguing demonstrable facts with real evidence, you've failed completely. All you come up with are conspiracy theories and talking points lifted directly from Trump speeches - even the absurd things, such as Trump had a right to those documents. And if you want to argue that isn't absurd, quote the statute that says that he did.

Sure, Biden makes a lot of gaffes. But not as many as the other guy. Personally, I think you're in for a big disappointment. I'm old enough to remember when the whole echo-chamber was saying Ronald Reagan was too old, making too many gaffes (which he did) and his approval rating was stuck at 39%. The conspiracy theory at the time was that he had dementia and it was Nancy who was really running the White House. He won 49 states in the election the same year.

That's not 'benefit of the doubt. Dishonesty is about the worst and nastiest accusation that you can make. So finish the sentence. See what that does for you. And then, when you stop trying to run this conversation by insulting me, then maybe we can have a sensible one based on evidence and interpretation. Until t6hen, unless you're willing to converse in a civil, respectful way, there's nothing to say.