That 'young man', is it just me or does he look about twelve, and isn't it illegal to post a pic of someone underage with a caption that accuses him of committing a crime? Am not sure about the US, but over here it is forbidden.
I will try to refrain to comment on your astute observation, for fear it'll come out very cynical and offend people.
But, I will say this--"*sigh* The distinction doesn't surprise me in the least."
Because, lest we forget, most of the people who are there couldn't LEAVE, and, oh, most of the people who couldn't leave were poor or elderly and oh most of those people are of color.
Please don't get me started on my theory as to why they are still there and slow to get help. It shan't be pretty.
I agree that in this context, it's inflammatory, but I've seen plenty of coverage of "looting" with white people in it, and of blacks (well, race isn't usually mentioned per se) going to "find" food.
I agree that, in the context it was presented, that the pictures are inflammatory- but also that it was framed to be that way.
Oh yeah, I knew they were not from the same person, but it was rather amusing in the context that somehow those white folks "found" an open, operating store and were able to somehow purchase items.
I saw the pictures first on Yahoo - the second one was removed (with its caption) about two hours later. The link happened to archive it.
I wish I could find the post from BoingBoing blog article on this. It was so rational.
Basically what it said was this:
The two photos from two widely different sources - No one knows the circumstances under which the photos were shot.
The upper photois from AP, who is labelling EVERY photo of people (black or white) looters. The lower is from Getty, who has photos of black people captioned as people finding supplies.
AP is a conservative news source and is going to be on the side of "law and order" - They are going to be for the guys sitting in their stores shooting looters. Not surprising.
Getty gets photos from independent sources who might be taking photos of friends and family.
This whole thing has gotten way out of hand with the black/white media thing based on two photos from widely different media sources.
Yeah, I knew they were not from the same person/source, but it was rather amusing in the context that somehow those white folks "found" an open, operating store and were able to somehow purchase items.
I saw the pictures first on Yahoo - the second one was removed (with its caption) about two hours later. The link happened to archive it. I don't believe that the second one had a Getty stamp on it though.
In this I think that people are directing anger where it doesn't belong. Why don't we direct our anger at CNN and at their gleeful coverage and lack of respect for the victims of this?
No one is covering what's happening on the internet, are they? Nor are they covering the positive stuff and encouraging people to do more of it.
I can't believe the BoingBoing post and links changed.
Okay, my memory might be menopaused out, but this is what I remember: The AP photographer had pictures of a white guy with baggie green shorts and a white tee-shirt - Dark blonde hair - really stringy, young (you know, the kind we always joke about when we call them jailbait and icky, D? *ew*!) he was standing next to a post of some sort in ankle high water and he was going through a bag. The caption labelled him as a looter. I'm not that nuts. I remember that photo.
Maybe the second didn't have a Getty stamp because it had been purchased?
I just think this is adding fuel to a big racism fire and we don't need it right now. Especially over some stupid pictures. There are enough problems to deal with. I never even thought aboout race being an issue until this came up. I looked at everything as being a have and a have-not issue.
It's simple. The people with money got out of the way. The people without money got dead and miserable.
I gotta say that the people who look at the pictures and think that only blacks are looters are asshats to begin with. A few pictures are not gonna change anyone's minds either way.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
quidditchgrrl
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-02 06:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-02 08:26 am (UTC)But, I will say this--"*sigh* The distinction doesn't surprise me in the least."
Because, lest we forget, most of the people who are there couldn't LEAVE, and, oh, most of the people who couldn't leave were poor or elderly and oh most of those people are of color.
Please don't get me started on my theory as to why they are still there and slow to get help. It shan't be pretty.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-02 12:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-05 01:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-05 01:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-02 11:31 am (UTC)http://www.snopes.com/photos/katrina/looters.asp
I agree that in this context, it's inflammatory, but I've seen plenty of coverage of "looting" with white people in it, and of blacks (well, race isn't usually mentioned per se) going to "find" food.
I agree that, in the context it was presented, that the pictures are inflammatory- but also that it was framed to be that way.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-02 12:38 pm (UTC)I saw the pictures first on Yahoo - the second one was removed (with its caption) about two hours later. The link happened to archive it.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-02 11:36 am (UTC)Basically what it said was this:
The two photos from two widely different sources - No one knows the circumstances under which the photos were shot.
The upper photois from AP, who is labelling EVERY photo of people (black or white) looters. The lower is from Getty, who has photos of black people captioned as people finding supplies.
AP is a conservative news source and is going to be on the side of "law and order" - They are going to be for the guys sitting in their stores shooting looters. Not surprising.
Getty gets photos from independent sources who might be taking photos of friends and family.
This whole thing has gotten way out of hand with the black/white media thing based on two photos from widely different media sources.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-02 12:39 pm (UTC)I saw the pictures first on Yahoo - the second one was removed (with its caption) about two hours later. The link happened to archive it. I don't believe that the second one had a Getty stamp on it though.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-02 09:29 pm (UTC)No one is covering what's happening on the internet, are they? Nor are they covering the positive stuff and encouraging people to do more of it.
I can't believe the BoingBoing post and links changed.
Okay, my memory might be menopaused out, but this is what I remember: The AP photographer had pictures of a white guy with baggie green shorts and a white tee-shirt - Dark blonde hair - really stringy, young (you know, the kind we always joke about when we call them jailbait and icky, D? *ew*!) he was standing next to a post of some sort in ankle high water and he was going through a bag. The caption labelled him as a looter. I'm not that nuts. I remember that photo.
Maybe the second didn't have a Getty stamp because it had been purchased?
I just think this is adding fuel to a big racism fire and we don't need it right now. Especially over some stupid pictures. There are enough problems to deal with. I never even thought aboout race being an issue until this came up. I looked at everything as being a have and a have-not issue.
It's simple. The people with money got out of the way. The people without money got dead and miserable.
I gotta say that the people who look at the pictures and think that only blacks are looters are asshats to begin with. A few pictures are not gonna change anyone's minds either way.
I'll STFU now. *hed-desk*
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-02 04:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-02 09:13 pm (UTC)*jaw drops*