Photog Who Wrote the "found" (vs "looting") Caption

[UTUSN]

Since this is a couple of days old it might have been posted before--if so, sorry.

*******QUOTE*******

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=17204

new orleans | LA | USA | Posted: 6:10 PM on 08.31.05
->> Jeasus, I don't belive how much crap I'm getting from this. First of all, I hope you excuse me, but I'm completely at the end of my rope. You have no Idea how stressful this whole disaster is, espically since I have not seen my wife in 5 days, and my parents and grand parents HAVE LOST THIER HOMES. As of right now, we have almost NOTHING.

Please stop emailing me on this one.

I wrote the caption about the two people who 'found' the items. I believed in my opinion, that they did simply find them, and not 'looted' them in the definition of the word. The people were swimming in chest deep water, and there were other people in the water, both white and black. I looked for the best picture. there were a million items floating in the water - we were right near a grocery store that had 5+ feet of water in it. it had no doors. the water was moving, and the stuff was floating away. These people were not ducking into a store and busting down windows to get electronics. They picked up bread and cokes that were floating in the water. They would have floated away anyhow. I wouldn't have taken in, because I wouldn't eat anything that's been in that water. But I'm not homeless. (well, technically I am right now.)

I'm not trying to be politically correct. I'm don't care if you are white or black. I spent 4 hours on a boat in my parent's neighborhood shooting, and rescuing people, both black and white, dog and cat. I am a journalist, and a human being - and I see all as such. If you don't belive me, you can look on Getty today and see the images I shot of real looting today, and you will see white and black people, and they were DEFINATELY looting. And I put that in the caption.

Please, please don't argue symantics over this one. This is EXTREMELY serious, and I can't even begin to convey to those not here what it is like. Please, please, be more concerned on how this affects all of us (watch gas prices) and please, please help out if you can.

This is my home, I will hopefully always be here. I know that my friends in this business across the gulf south are going through the exact same thing - and I am with them, and will do whatever I can to help. But please, please don't email me any more about this caption issue.

And please, don't yell at me about spelling and grammar. Im eating my first real meal (a sandwich) right now in 3 days.

When this calms down, I will be more than willing to answer any questions, just ask.


Thank you all -
-Chris Graythen

************UNQUOTE*********

[nyhuskyfan]

1. This really wasn't his fault...

It was the compare-and-contrast with the other photo that caused the problem.

[Must_B_Free]

2. what a fucking jackwad.. .

[LoZoccolo]

24. Why are you calling him that?

Oh geez, people aren't making sense again.

This is why people hate us, because they don't want to be the next person we throw a stupid accusation at.

[Must_B_Free]

26. Just because someone posts an excuse on a message board

I'm supposed to dismiss the blatant racism in the portrayal of black victims? I don't think so.

[mondo joe]

28. What racism did HE show? Please explain.

[tammywammy]

36. Can you elaborate?

I don't understand he wrote the caption for the picture with the white people. He didn't write the "looting" caption. He had nothing to do with the "looting" caption. How was he being racist?

[LoZoccolo]

39. If it's a good enough excuse, yes.

As in, "this particular person didn't even write the other caption". I would think that dismisses him, you know, the guy whose name got highlighted in the original post, from charges of racism, you know, seeing as he had nothing to do with the other caption. Shout me down some more though, and I might see the error of my ways (or pretend like I do).

[Totally Committed]

3. I suppose anyone in the media who misspells the word "DEFINITELY"

wouldn't know racism if it hit him over the head. It WAS, IS and REMAINS the defining instance of the racist element of this disaster -- for me, at least.

He misspelled "THEIR", too. Who else do we know that constantly misspells in their writings? FR-ers! That's right. Maybe Chris was just too shook up.

Both those pictures showed people with FOOD, not one with food, and one with "electronics". ANYONE WHO TOOK FOOD BECAUSE THEY WERE HUNGRY, OR WATER BECAUSE THEY WERE THIRSTY, OR DIAPERS FOR THEIR BABIES -- OR WERE TAKING CARE OF A FAMILY WITH CHILDREN -- SHOULD BE GIVEN A BREAK! The Federal Government wasn't helping them, or communicating with them.

Chris, babe, thou protesteth too much.

TC

[slampoet]

4. I love how

he thinks a bag of bread just floats into a white person's hands

fuck him.

[mattclearing]

52. Welcome to DU.

:hi:

Your username reminds me of Saul Williams, who is a real American hero.

[Roland99]

6. Cut the guy a break...plus, didn't you read this?

"And please, don't yell at me about spelling and grammar. Im eating my first real meal (a sandwich) right now in 3 days. "

[mondo joe]

8. #1 Plenty of DU posters have worse spelling; #2 he isn't the one who said

the others were looting; #3 he describes how at this location food WAS floating.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

32. You've got an interesting approach toward someone that has lost....

...their family.

[ret5hd]

5. my prob wasn't with the "found" caption...it was the "looting" caption.

[Journeyman]

11. The captions were written by two different agencies. . .

one picture and caption came from AP, the other from AFP. . .

[ret5hd]

31. i understand...does that explain away bias tho...

"i wasn't the one to get it right before, so it's ok if i get it wrong now."

[blogslut]

13. bingo

I think folks are picking on the wrong captioneer.

[MsTryska]

7. GOOD LORD...could y'all give the guy a break?

if he says he was shooting near a grocery store where stuff was floating away, than leave it be.


there is a difference between "finding" "catching" whatever and looting.



Should people be upset about the looting? no - it happenned.

[fortyfeetunder]

14. No there is not a difference...

I bet if a black person had caught some of that floating food debris, they would have been identified as a looter too.

Sorry, I don't buy into your argument.

[LoZoccolo]

46. Oh, so now we are accusing people based on what we imagine they'd do?

Sounds like the criteria for getting locked up in Gitmo.

[mondo joe]

47. I'm so embarrassed to be a Dem when I read things like that.

It makes me feel like the the difference between DU and FR is just cosmetic. :-(

[littleraf]

9. This Photog Should Have Just Shut Up

When you're chin-deep in shit the best thing to do is keep your mouth shut. This idiot shuould have apologized and let that be it. But trying to defend his actions after he's already been exposed is just plain stupid. What a moron. He sees busted storefront windows and doesn't conclude they were looting? Does that make sense? He thinks they simply found those foodstuffs? Sure, the same way the Europeans say they "discovered" the Americas.
And MsTryska, why don't you give US a break?

[mondo joe]

10. Why is HE in chin deep? He didn't write both captions.

In fact he didn't do ANYTHING wrong.

What does he have to apologize for?

[littleraf]

15. Mondo, read the first thread.

Read the first post in the thread. You're defending the guy and you didn't even read the thread where he's quoted, "I wrote the caption about the two people who 'found' the items." Get your information first, then go into defense-mode.

[mondo joe]

18. I did read it. You didn't understand it. He wrote the FOUND caption, not

the LOOTING caption it's compared to.

What about that don't you understand?

[LoZoccolo]

23. Oh geez.

We know he wrote the caption, that's not the issue.

[MS68]

16. Really!

If he had written both captions that would be one thing, but why are they blaming him for the tacky caption that somebody else wrote?

Do we know that he would have used the term "looting" if he had shot the photo of a black person?

This is worrisome...the battles must be chosen reasonably or the war will be lost.

[littleraf]

17. Yes He did

Read the first post in the thread. You're defending the guy and you didn't even read the thread where he's quoted, "I wrote the caption about the two people who 'found' the items." Get your information first, then go into defense-mode.

[mondo joe]

19. No no no. He wrote about the 2 people in the 1 photo with the "found"

caption. The "looting" caption is from a WHOLE DIFFERENT SERVICE. Not this same photographer.

[mondo joe]

21. Information for the reading impaired: Snopes

http://www.snopes.com/photos/katrina/looters.asp

Check it out.

You'll see the FOUND photo was by Chris Graythen.

The LOOTING photo was by Dave Martin.

But if you're THAT reading impaired this may make not better sense to you.

[tammywammy]

20. I agree Mondo

He didn't write both captions just the "found" one. And he explains why he said it was "found," because the grocery store was flooding and the food was going by them. They didn't actually go into the store to get the food.

I think he's got a very reasonable explaniation.

I feel for him, going through all this crap, while he's lost his home.

[mondo joe]

22. People are too attack happy to be rational or informed.

It's been an enlightening week on DU.

[tammywammy]

35. Yes, yes it has. n/t

[UTUSN]

12. Here Are the Two Pics

[1932]

25. This guy sounds like an asshole.

First paragraph says don't hold me accountable to high ethical standards because I'm suffering. No matter how hard life is on you personally, you should still be held accountable for the implications of the work you do. Furthermore, I'm not clear on how the stress of his life effects one's ability to be an objective journalist.

Then he tries to draw a line that I find stupid.

All those looters who broke into stores to get food wouldn't have had to do so if the flood had knocked the doors open and the food just flowed out to them. His distinction doesn't make that much of a difference, in the big scheme of things. If Bush is right that we have zero tollerance for people taking things they don't own, this would be covered.

If this guy had any decency, he wouldn't make excuses based on his own suffering and he'd just say that he felt that he described the scene accurately and that he appreciates that there is little difference for what these peopel were doing and what people did when they didn't have the good fortune of finding food flowing out of stores.

[mondo joe]

27. Wrong: from which high ethical standard did he ask to be exempt?

He didn't do ANYTHING wrong and he isn't asking to be excused. He explained what happened so a bunch of misinformed people could get the facts.

Didn't work, did it?

[littleraf]

30. Briliant philosophical retort!

Somebody knocks down all your arguments in one statement, and you just reply WRONG! Face it, the guy immediately concluded that two people who just happened by a store had "found" items. He never thought to himself, "Hmm, wonder if they perhaps might not have bought those items." I understand you're "reading impaired," but I give you more credit that to continue talking "common-sense impaired." The photog decided to self-edit and he's paying the price.
I'm through arguing the point with you because we're going in circles. Your arguments (or rather arguing) would be better suited to FreeperLand where all Negroes are guilty and all whites are innocent and no racial slight or slur is ever questioned, only defended.

[mondo joe]

37. Is this how you deal with being wrong?

You're proven wrong so you insult others?

Nice.

[1932]

40. I'm positive this guy, as a journalist,

is aware that there was a theme in the media -- looters vs people trying to survive.

In this letter he foregrounds his personal suffering, which isn't really relevant and then he tries to draw a distinction between people going into a store taking food and food flowing out the front door and people taking it.

I wrote above what I thought an appropriate response would be.

[1932]

41. I'm positive this guy, as a journalist,

is aware that there was a theme in the media -- looters vs people trying to survive.

In this letter he foregrounds his personal suffering, which isn't really relevant and then he tries to draw a distinction between people going into a store taking food and food flowing out the front door and people taking it.

I wrote above what I thought an appropriate response would be.

[mondo joe]

43. Since he's been in NO annd hasn't event EATEN for several days I hardly

think he's expected to know what's in the MSM.

Fuurthermore, as a photojournaliist it's not his job to deal with editorial but to report what he finds.

And as he explained, he saw some people looting (and said so), and found other people who were finding food that washed out of the store (and said so).

There are plenty of people who did plenty wrong, but this guy isn't one of them.

But you failed to back up your accusation: OF WHICH HIGH ETHICAL STANDARD DID HE ASK TO BE EXEMPTED?

[1932]

44. I think a smarter more thoughtful journalist

would have simply said that he described what he saw, but appreciates the concerns of readers, and would not have tried to make the inane distinction between food flowing out the front doors of a store and going in and taking food.

Furthermore, judging from his response (defensive and shifting the focus to himself) I suspect that he's not being entirely honest. Do you think the people with food in their hands waited patiently outside the store until something floated out? Certainly, some of those people weren't so patient. Certainly some of them went inside to get food.

As for ethical standards, here you go:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:u1Q7HpUPZNQJ:www.nytco.com/pdf/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_0904.pdf+journalism+ethical+standards&hl=en&client=safari

We treat our readers no less fairly in private than in public.
Anyone who deals with readers is expected to honor that
principle, knowing that ultimately the readers are our employers.
Civility applies whether an exchange takes place in person, by
telephone, by letter or online. Simple courtesy suggests that
we not alienate our readers by ignoring their letters and e-mails
that warrant reply.

I think those two pictures warrant concern by readers. "Leave me alone, I'm suffering here. The food floated out the door, and that justifies my anger at readers for raising these concerns" is a juvenile response.

I'm sure I could keep going through these ethical rules and develop my argument further. If you want me to, I will.

[mondo joe]

45. So the "high ethical standard" is getting upset about being slandered?

You've got to be really desperate to begrudge this guy his email.

Regarding the ethical standard, he dealt with people fairly and asked for his spelling or grammar to be excused.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

And since he was there and saw it and you didn't, I'll go with his assessment over yours.

[1932]

48. Like I said,

His caption may be defensible (however, I find it highl improbably that (1) everyone he saw waited patietnly for food to float out that store, and (2) he knows for sure whether the people in his picture did in fact wait patiently for food to float out). However, his response is not impressive.

Incidently, if you read that link, the NYT considers the readers opinions very important and the thing I quoted is at the top of their list of ethical standards.

[mondo joe]

50. Why do you think they WAITED for food to float out?

Sounds like it was already there, just like a lot of debris.

And your accusation of ethics violation is shameful.

[1932]

53. I don't think they did.

He suggested they did. By the way, notice that he admits that he doesn't even know the truth. He defends his "opinion."

That's another violation of journalitic ethics. He wrote something in his caption that he doesn't know to be true, and then he tells people to stop picking on him because he's suffering.

I feel absolutely no shame in pointing this out.


I believed in my opinion, that they did simply find them, and not 'looted' them in the definition of the word. The people were swimming in chest deep water, and there were other people in the water, both white and black. I looked for the best picture. there were a million items floating in the water - we were right near a grocery store

[mondo joe]

55. His opinion is about the definition of the word.

And he did exactly what he was supposed to do: he reported what he saw.

Sorry it doesn't fit your political agenda.

[1932]

56. He didn't check his facts and he's defending his "opinion"

He admits that he doesn't know what the truth is.

Check that code of journalistic ethics to which I linked and see what it says about publishing "opinions."

[mondo joe]

57. Fact checking? On wether people in chest high water found food??

He's a photojournalist in something more chaotic than a war zone.

The only OPINION is whether you define it as looting or not - but that's semantics, not fact checking.

I can't believe how desperate you are to try to pin something on the guy.

[1932]

59. I guarantee you (as I said above) every journalist in America is

aware of the implications of foregrounding "looting" as the story of this crisis.

This guy wrote a caption and ADMITS here that it's he's defending his OPINION and that he doesn't know for sure whether it's a fact that these people found this stuff (rather than trespassed to aquire it).

I think if you check that link I provided, that's not up to snuff in terms of being journalitically ethical.

And, on top of this, he's very snippy about having to defend himself.

[brentspeak]

29. Disgusting that people here are terming this guy a "racist"

or an "a$$hole", or that he should "apologize", or "keep his mouth shut".

This guy doesn't have to "keep his mouth shut" about anything. Talk about condenscending and self-righteoud. But not as condenscending as calling him a "racist" because he used the word -- oh, no! the racist! -- "found".

[mondo joe]

38. And more disgusting that when they're shown to be wrong they have to

make up as new rationale to condemn a guy who did NOTHING wrong.

[atre]

33. I'm calling BS here

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

Cokes don't float, at least not as they are packaged in grocery stores. He's dissembling.

Just to clarify, though. We shouldn't necessarily attack THIS guy, who apparently had sympathy for "looters" (or whatever you want to call them) scavenging for their lives. I think it's the other photographer who deserves our negative attention.

[mondo joe]

42. Diet Coke floats.

See for yourself: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/QTMovies/PressureFluids/FloatingDietCokeMov.html

[Maru Kitteh]

34. Even if everything he said is true

Then those white people knew where the bread and cokes came from and they still didn't pay for it so it's STILL stealing/looting.

What is the difference between snatching unpaid for merchandise that is floating by from a store when you know very well where it came from and walking into a store that will soon be filled with water and taking the same life sustaining merchandise?

All you are left with is white and black.

[6000eliot]

58. Exactly. I don't buy it. Still racism.

[Nobody]

49. I'd rather have "found" on both photos

We have....

Hurricane Katrina, which wiped out a city and left tons of people with nothing.

Food in convenience stores while masses of hungry and thirsty people are desparately needing it.

It's a matter of needing the food to survive, otherwise it'll go bad. Let food go to waste while people starve? Not in my universe.

I would call it looting if people broke into a place to steal big screen TVs or other non-necessities. I would call it looting if you take things from someone's home or car. But food that's otherwise going to sit there and rot? No way.

Black or white, they needed that food and they should not be labeled looters for merely trying to survive.

The more I read about this disaster, the angrier I get with our "government".

[Lone_Star_Dem]

51. Personally, I'd rather hear from Dave Martin

Dave Martin (Mr black man looted grocery store) is the person who showed himself to be the racist here, that is if he wrote the caption to his photo.

What does he have to say for himself?

[mondo joe]

54. Also covered by Snopes.

Jack Stokes, AP's director of media relations, confirmed today that Martin says he witnessed the people in his images looting a grocery store. "He saw the person go into the shop and take the goods," Stokes said, "and that's why he wrote 'looting' in the caption."

http://www.snopes.com/photos/katrina/looters.asp

[LTR]

60. Okay, end of story

He wrote the caption for the picture with the white couple. Had nothing to do with the other.

Another organization wrote the other caption. Neither caption had anything to do with the other.

He's been through a lot of shit. He has my forgiveness. Leave the poor guy alone. He did nothing wrong.

If we keep trashing him, then DU is no better than Free Republic in my eyes.