AC sent me some screen shots of some AP/Yahoo photos with captions that may reflect racism among the journalistic elite. No links to the original photo URIs were sent, and AC claims they've been taken down.
The captions identify black looters as "looters" and white looters as "two residents" "finding" bread and soda in a grocery store. What do you think?
Update:
David Hiersekorn writes:
There are a couple of reasons. First, the two photos were taken by different agencies. The "looters" photo was from AP, and the "finders" photo was from Agence-France Press. There are very likely different editorial standards.Secondly, the actual photographers were interviewed. The "looters" photographer observed the people entering a store and coming out with the merchandise. On the other hand, the "finders" photographer saw the people actual "find" the food outside a store. They never entered the store.
I think there is a genuine question as to whether a person can "loot" lost items. The different caption likely reflects a difficult editorial decision in an attempt to distinguish what was observed from the common understanding of what "looting" is.
This isn't an example of racism.
Sounds reasonable to me. It appears now that this story got quite a bit of play last week and I just never noticed it.
Its a big nothing, the two photos that show 'black looters' are from the AP and the photo that shows 'white finders' is from AFP. Different photographers, different news agencies, different standards, different 'PC' controls and so on amount to a comparison that means absolutly nothing.
Now if all the photos were from the same news agency and photographer and the discriptions wee different based on race, then it would say a lot more about racism.
It's not just that, Pirate. Someone else had more on this--the guy who took the picture of the black man had seen him loot the store; the one who took the picture of the white people saw them pick up food that had already floated out of a different store on its own.
Not to mention that the white people in the picture have bread and water, while the bloack people in the other two pictures have beer and diet Pepsi.
If you were in a disaster, which foodstuffs would you need to survive?:
a)Bread
b)Water
c)Beer
d)Diet Pepsi
Yes I was aware of that part of the story (however I have heard some try to accuse the photographers of lying). But even if the events leading up to the photos were the same, I'd still say you can't call it an indicator of racism for the points I previously made.
Dude, this is sooooo last week.
Race Differences in America? Now that's unique huh?
The real story here is how libs project themselves onto their surroundings. How many pictures have come out of New Orleans in the past two weeks? Thousands? Tens of thousands? So what could it possibly prove that someone can pick out a few to make whatever point they want?
Those pictures were a Rorschach blot: You can see in them whatever you want. If you want to see racism, you'll see it. And if you want to see unhealthy liberal obsession with racism, then you can see that, too.
Nagin is a bullsh*tting, incompetent punk [adjective: Slang: Of poor quality; inferior] whose only qualifications for the job is that he's as corrupt as the rest of the local government.
Blanco is a bullsh*tting, incompetent punkess [adjective: Slang: Of poor quality; inferior] whose only qualifications for the job was the (D) next to her name on the ballot.
I lived in the Gulfport/Biloxi area for four years from 2000-2004. I'm more then familiar with that whole area and New Orleans as well.
New Orleans is a turd bowl reeking of sh*t, piss, vomit and decay. Oh... did I mention this was before the hurricane.
The corruption of New Orleans local government and police force rivals the best (worst??) that Mexico has to offer (I lived on the Mexican border as well for 5 years).
I am all for spending federal funds (our tax dollars) to help in the aftermath, whatever it takes. However, I don't want one thin dime of my taxes going towards any rebuilding of that turd bowl city. Not one dime.
Common sense says don't build below sea level in hurricane prone areas. By the way, don't forget to thank the French for New Orleans (and also thank them for the couple of tents and cots their donating now).
I applaud House Speaker Dennis Hastert for having the gonads to say publicly what I and many others feel about rebuilding that turd bowl city.
It would take many Billions of dollars, possibly 100's of Billions to rebuild. It would surpass the Big Dig in Boston for the amount of corruption, scams, cost overruns, thievery and once again, incompetence.
And after all that waste of money the following week could bring another Cat 4 or Cat 5 hurricane.
I say NO!
Give the Big Easy the Big "Final" Rest.
A. Patriot, you are A. Idiot. We don't have the luxury of moving our rivers around to a more suitable location. We may not need a city like pre-hurricane New Orleans, and we sure as hell don't need the massive corruption, but we do need a city there. Without it, the Louisiana Purchase would have been pointless.
i'm with patriot (minus all the language) on not rebuilding new orleans in it's present/past location. it will be hit again by a hurricane, its just a matter of time. it could be 100 years or 3 years. do we want to invest 100's of billions of dollars to just have it destroyed again? back a few miles upstream until you are above sea level and build there. the old new orleans will make great cover for bass and other game fish. you know the local and state governments are wringing their hands with anticipation of all the federal dollars heading their way. it will be years before this squeaky wheel is quiet.