It would be interesting to gain some professional insight on what's happening here, as I (like several other responders) find this article somewhat objectionabl

It would be interesting to gain some professional insight on what's happening here, as I (like several other responders) find this article somewhat objectionable. The story that is presented literally ends with these words: > the gift shop can’t sell the calendar because "it’s not an official work of the U.S. government There's no need for punctuation, no need to close the quote. The story is over. There's still a question in my mind, though, about how this came to pass. Looking at the story closely, it appears to largely consist of a human interest filler piece on one particular man's hobby devotion to the CIA, as well as the sentimentality of several former operatives; actually, I imagine some frowns at the CIA to see the story being published, because it looks awfully like a major national newspaper known for investigative journalism doing a favour to former (and possibly current) CIA employees by publicizing their pet project. I don't have the experience to look at an article and recognize what it was meant to be, but the structure seems very awkward, and I am wondering if we are seeing a story that just turned out to be meaningless and was published anyway (the gift shop refusal) or a rather boring (to anyone without a 'patriotic'-type interest in the CIA) human interest piece that was unwisely and badly rearranged to justify a clickbait title. Knowledgeable replies would be very welcome. I am willing to say things that are wrong if that would help inspire you.