AP Stands by Caption in 'Looting' Photo Controversy

[gatorboy]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001054569

They were just two out of hundreds of stunning images transmitted Tuesday, the day after Katrina ravaged New Orleans. What has drawn attention to these two photos, though, is their captions.

<snip>

The Associated Press said its policy was clear. "When we see people go into businesses and come out with goods, we call it looting," said Santiago Lyon, AP's director of photography. "When we just see them carrying things down the road, we call it carrying items."

<snip>

As for the other photo, Getty said it stood by its caption and its photographer, Chris Graythen, who says the subjects of his photo were simply picking up items floating by in the dank waters.

"These people were not ducking into a store and busting down windows to get electronics," he wrote. "They picked up bread and cokes that were floating in the water. They would have floated away anyhow."
--------------------------------------------------

[fleabert]

1. so if the wind or water breaks the window, you are free to take the items

without condemnation, but if you are starving and you break the window to take food that would rot and be thrown away anyway, you are stealing?

wtf is wrong with people?

[fujiyama]

2. The AP has confirmed what was obvious during the election

It's RW propaganda.

I didn't knew it was racist as well...

[incapsulated]

7. Yup, they've been on my shitlist since then

According to AP, I'm looting the air I fucking breathe right now.

[MercutioATC]

3. It's hard to argue with that...

I wasn't there. Their definition (while not necessarily mine) sounds consistent and I'm in no place to question the photographer's account.

[Wind Dancer]

20. Why does that not surprise me! n/t

[okieinpain]

4. then they should prove they saw him come out of the store with the

items. if they watched him come out with the stuff they should put up the picture of him doing so.

[SofaKingLiberal]

6. I agree, this sounds like BS.

Where is the picture of the 'looter' looting?

[slor]

5. See...those good and nice...

white people were cleaning the floodwaters, for environmental reasons.

[Union Thug]

8. Arrogant assholes.. I WOULD BE "LOOTING" too

if it were me trying to save my family from dying... Call it whatever they want. It's real easy for some pampered asshole in an air conditioned office to criticize, but put the asshole down in the shithole and watch how fast they change their tune.

Anyone who disagrees can fuck off. Anyone who puts property before people has zero credibility in my book.

[SofaKingLiberal]

9. They removed the white people find picture,

the black boy looting is still there though. :eyes:


White People Find
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/photos_ts_afp/050830...

Black Boy Loots
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/480/ladm10208301530

[gatorboy]

11. Did they take the caption off of the "looting" pic? n/t

[SofaKingLiberal]

13. Nope

'A young man walks through chest deep flood water after looting a grocery store in New Orleans'

[gatorboy]

18. JUst checking.

When I had clicked on the link, the tag-line didn't seem to come up. INstead they had a link to the complaints they were getting.

[mogster]

14. I've saved it as a screendump

Here:



They're not gonna get us to forget it that quickly..

[LunaSea]

10. there were more than "just two".

pricks.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

12. The black kid didn't take electronics.

He is clearly taking a carton of Diet Pepsi.

The white couple may have "found" the items (without paying), but they came from the store in the first damn place.

How are they different?

[chalky]

15. "They picked up bread and cokes that were floating in the water. "

Ummm...the only one I see with sodas is the black kid.

And why did they stand by the caption, but take the picture down?

That explanation is pure-dee CRAP.

[ET Awful]

16. But the caption said those nice white people found the stuff IN A GROCERY

STORE.

Sounds like bullshit to me.

[bos1]

17. As you say, WTF is wrong with people? There is no

drinkable water to be found and that cola could be a lifesaver. Why is it looting to go into a (flooded, destroyed) supermarket and get some drinking water that will save your life or the life of your children? How about it being okay to go into supermarkets to get food and wather during an massive emergency? WTF IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?

[Oeditpus Rex]

19. No, it says they found it

"from a grocery store." (Emphasis added.) The distinction is clear to me.

This is the fourth thread in which I've posted against the grain on this topic, and I'm pretty sick of it. The consensus seems to be that the AP, either deliberately or insensitively, wrote "looted" because the man is black. I've been a print journalist (reporter, editor and photographer) for most of my adult life, and I can tell you that legitimate journalists do not choose their words so indiscretionately.

The AP photographer wrote "looted" because he witnessed the man taking the items out of the store. The caption went through an editor before it was posted; the editor questioned the photographer on the word and was satisfied with the explanation. It was not assumed that since the man is black, he must have looted the items.

If it's simply the word "looted" you object to, I can sort of understand that. But I would ask, what word would you use in its place that would not convey any sort of editorial bias, but complete neutrality and objectivity? Trust me; such words are often not easy to come by. It's often a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

You may disagree with the AP's policy, but it is not one of racism or insensitivity. If you believe the caption was racist or insensitive, by all means let them know. But please, be objective.

[ET Awful]

21. Bullshit. If he saw the man taking stuff from the store, he'd have shots

of the man taking stuff from the store, not in the middle of the street with no store in site.

[Oeditpus Rex]

22. How do you know this?

Do you know where the photographer was in relation to the store?

[ET Awful]

23. Ummm, if he saw the person looting, he had to have seen the store

otherwise he could not have seen the person looting, that's kind of the way it works.

[Oeditpus Rex]

24. Your point was, and I quote,

"he'd have shots of the man taking stuff from the store."

I'm a photographer, complete with big-ass lenses and stuff. I see tons of things every day that I can't get a photo of for one reason or another. That's just kind of the way photography works.

[ET Awful]

25. I'm a photographer as well, and any photographer worthy of his

equipment would still have been able to get a shot of the actual "looting" instead of making up a background story later to substantiate his caption.

If he could see them looting, he could get a picture of them looting.

I'm happy to know you make excuses for such things though.

[Oeditpus Rex]

26. "If he could see them looting, he could get a picture of them looting."

You have no way of knowing this. You were not there.

I can stand at one end of a football field and see, if there's no obstruction, a ball carrier scoring a touchdown in the opposite end zone. The only way I can get a definitive photo of it would be if I had a lens that doesn't exist — say, a 1,000 mm f2. And even then, I'd need a clear field of view, near-perfect timing, etc.

And that's just one example.

I make no excuses for the AP photog. I offer logical reasons for the difference in the cutlines. You, and many others, choose to ignore these and counter-productively play the race card. I'm not foolish enough to expect to change anyone's mind. I'm just trying to open a few.

[ET Awful]

27. Do you then take a picture of that ball carrier sitting on the sideline

and say "he's seen here scoring a touchdown"?

If you're going to say they say him from that distance and then took a photo of him later, you might as well assume the photographer said "they all look alike to me." This guy wasn't wearing a uniform and a number.

[Oeditpus Rex]

28. Your logic is flawed

The cutline in question clearly states, "after looting". (Emphasis added.)

[ET Awful]

29. Fine. . . you're right, there's NO racism ever in the press, they

only said black people were looting because . . . . well because they saw somebody black from a distance and it kind of looked like they were looting then they saw somebody black that was hauling something that could possibly have come from a store, so it MUST have been the same black people.

Once again, if they could see the person looting, they could take a picture of the person looting. If they could NOT take the picture, but instead took a picture of someone after the fact and made the presumption that it was the same person they think they saw looting, then they are still making a veiled racist presumption by automatically assuming that the black person they now see with goods is the same person they could not take a photo of earlier.

Sorry, your defense just doesn't wash.