Not sure I disagree with that order. The NPS intentionally retweeted a political statement. (Showing the crowds for Obama's inauguration and Trumps) It was a very stupid thing to do.
How in the world is a picture of actual reality a "political statement"? How on Earth can an unedited photo of something that really happened be construed in this way?
Reuters went on record with an (apparently) EXIF-derived timestamp of 12:01:18 EST, and PBS has a seven-hour time lapse substantiating the image. It is not fake.
There have been side-by-side comparisons provided many times over by the same parties at the same vantage points, taken at roughly similar times (tens of minutes at most). The Trump pics, during much warmer weather with a bit of a drizzle, are sparsely populated compared to the Obama pics of roughly the same moment in inaugural event time, and a far colder 28 degrees outside, are far more packed. There's nothing fake happening here. There's even an awesome time lapse covering, I believe, a roughly 7-hour period. There's video and photo evidence of the Pres & VP walking along with empty stands behind and beside them. None of the photographic proof has been doctored—which would make it fake. The only thing fake here are the claims of the proof being fake.
That's a pretty silly question. But I dealt with that in another response to you below. I've not suggested anything of the sort. The Gigapixel is taken from a terrible vantage point for providing an accurate ... hell, not even a rough estimate of the total crowd size. That wasn't the purpose of the picture and it's chosen perspective. That makes it pointless and obvious defensive grandstanding to use it as indicative of anything other than the panoramic view near the main stage. It's the equivalent of choosing the profile photo that makes you look thin when it isn't indicative of all the weight you've gained since that photo was taken. Misleading for the purposes it's being offered.
IMO this is irrefutable evidence of a smaller crowd – which is a non issue... unless the President of the United States spreads falsehoods (formerly known as "lies") in contradiction of reality.
No, it's really not. Because you can't see the distance. And from this vantage point, tricks of perspective make the immediately close crowd the only thing one focuses on. I can see empty ground coverings way off in the distance of the pic. It's not an outlandish claim to make that based on their distance from the camera, seeing the empty space as visibly as one can must mean it's a very large empty space. That's what the pictures and video timelapse from the Washington monument provide—the total viewpoint. This gigapixel from the sidelines is in now way informative as an indicator of total crowd size.
I see. "I refuse your reality and substitute my own". If you can't see that Gigapixel shows radically more people, then I'm afraid I can't help you. :-)
It's only a "political statement" because the President continually repeats the most obvious lies, to the extent that he appears to be mentally ill.
Paul Ryan said today that there was no evidence of wide-spread voter fraud. Since the President still keeps telling obvious lies about the subject, was that a "political statement" on Ryan's part?
It's not appropriate for the official social media account of a government agency to tweet political content that criticizes the current President. That's going too far, and I'm not surprised at all that they were told to shut it.
NPS is in charge of the National Mall. They are heavily invested in the truth of statements about their work. Just as it was appropriate for intelligence officials to state they believed Russia hacked DNC servers, it is appropriate for the agency in charge to correct, lets be generous, misstatements about how many people attended an event they helped coordinate.
It is incredibly appropriate for the security services to state suspicion/evidence of foreign maleficence. (If it's true.. if it's a political suggestion.. they should be punished for propaganda) Although, Wikileaks has been nothing but consistent in stating it wasn't rush that gave them the leaks.
It is fine for NPS to report occurrences. However, it was not fine for them to make a comparison of inaugurations.
The offices of the government should and always should remain neutral. They should be judged on doing their job properly. Should the EPA pretend to be Milo on how they think that Trump's/Rep party's ignorance on Global Warming is bad? No they should be advising us on upcoming, and current threads, showing superfund cleanup efforts, creating effective change, etc.
It's hard to judge an organization correctly when it's trying to play politics. When you're wrestling with a pig, you're going to both get dirty, but in the end the politican likes it.
Comparing objective reality between two points in time is not partisan. It is factual. It is the truth. If the crowd had been larger than previous years, would you still object?
They were correcting a factually inaccurate statement made by the President of the United States, using evidence they were in possession of. One must hold truth above abstract concepts like "favor" and "taste".
Fewer people attended the inauguration. I'm sorry that bothers you so much, but it's the truth. If your solution to someone sharing the truth is to make them shut up, then you got some serious issues.