The "Finding/Looting" Controversy

[Illuminattile]

Snopes weighs in on the issue.

I agree that too much is probably being made of the issue. Seems like people are losing sight of the real tragedy that has taken place and being consumed by this paranoia about racism in news reports.

 

[Confucius87]

I can kinda understand that because the photos were taken by 2 different photo organizations. Now had they been taken and published by the same group, that would've been a problem.

 

[ARon]

It's a societal stereotype, things need to be changed, if it wasnt a problem both captions would of said the same thing.

 

[PuffnScruff]

it's a very stupid controversy. it is something that should be focused on in the coming weeks, if even at all. news outlets make mistakes and dont pay attention sometimes about how something is worded or may look.

if yahoo had wrote both captions i could see this as a controversy. but it is two different news organizations. two different captions, written by different people

 

[S O F I]

It was already explained and there is no controversy. The white couple found the stuff floating in the water, while the black person was seen coming out of a store with the stuff.

 

[PuffnScruff]

^really? i hadn't heard that yet.

 

[Ghetto_Ghost]

it's a very stupid controversy. it is something that should be focused on in the coming weeks, if even at all. news outlets make mistakes and dont pay attention sometimes about how something is worded or may look.

if yahoo had wrote both captions i could see this as a controversy. but it is two different news organizations. two different captions, written by different people

thats right man
people tend not to fucos on the main problem thats why shit gets worse

 

[PELLA]

its all stereotypical. to tell u the truth, i expect a little racism in this whole tragedy. Especially in a city where like %70 of the people living there are black, with high crime rate and umemployment. C'mon...

 

[EDouble]

It was already explained and there is no controversy. The white couple found the stuff floating in the water, while the black person was seen coming out of a store with the stuff.

well maybe that woulda helped out the shit if tha caption hadnt said they 'found' the shit at the local grocry

 

[Freedom Froggy]

yea ok floating in the water lol

 

[ARon]

LMAO, floating in the water.

 

[Confucius87]

^really? i hadn't heard that yet.

if i'm not mistaken it says that in the article

 

[S O F I]

Froggie, you're Black, Aristotle is Black. You two are ofcourse going to be biased in this sort of situation. I'm just going off of what the photographers reportedly said.

 

[not really ken]

It was already explained and there is no controversy. The white couple found the stuff floating in the water, while the black person was seen coming out of a store with the stuff.

negative, the person who wrote the caption for the white pair said she assumedthey found the food, becasue she hadn't seen them loot so had to give benefit of the doubt
In regards to the black guy, the caption writer assumedhe looted becasue there were other people in the area looting

there were 'millions' of items floating around for the white pair, but nothing floating for the black guy. Damn everythings conspiring against the black guy.

 

[Illuminattile]

In regards to the black guy, the caption writer assumedhe looted becasue there were other people in the area looting

Do you read articles or do you just skim through them?

Jack Stokes, AP's director of media relations, confirmed today that [photographer Dave] 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."

 

[not really ken]

Do you read articles or do you just skim through them?

I read that bit but it's all foul to me. MILLIONS of items floating for the white pair. Nothing for the black guy.

They picked up bread and cokes that were floating in the water. They would have floated away anyhow.

Justifications also!!! How about writing 'took the food' for the black guy, because the 'food would have wasted away anyhow' for the black guy.

Even if the black guy hadn't been seen looting a store, then the spokepeople is never going to admit. They going to slide out of it, not dig themselves deeper.

 

[Illuminattile]

I read that bit but it's all foul to me. MILLIONS of items floating for the white pair. Nothing for the black guy.

Justifications also!!! How about writing 'took the food' for the black guy, because the 'food would have wasted away anyhow' for the black guy.

Even if the black guy hadn't been seen looting a store, then the spokepeople is never going to admit. They going to slide out of it, not dig themselves deeper.

The person who took the photo of the white couple did not see them looting, and so would have been wrong to say that they were. He took plenty of photos of genuine looters, black and white, and labelled those photographs accordingly.

The black guy was looting, regardless of whether or not he was justified in doing so. Perhaps if that photographer had taken the photograph of the white couple he would have labelled it as "looting" also.

 

[bigmack]

The writer is so comfortable sitting in his lazy boy,drinking his coffee,pointdexter looking motherfucker has nothing better to do than slide in a few jabs. Calling it looting was unneccessary.I mean cmon,doesnt matter what he saw,he could have at least wrote that the black guy found the food.

Oh so now the media is all fuckin honest,hah,thats some bullshit right there. The media is always sparking controversy,making huge deals out of nothing,and writing bullshit. now they're being honest?

 

[PuffnScruff]

if i'm not mistaken it says that in the article

i didn't notice there was an article

 

[Illuminattile]

The writer is so comfortable sitting in his lazy boy,drinking his coffee,pointdexter looking motherfucker has nothing better to do than slide in a few jabs.

Funny you should accuse him of '[sliding] in a few jabs', considering you've just insulted someone you don't know and have never seen.

Calling it looting was unneccessary.I mean cmon,doesnt matter what he saw,he could have at least wrote that the black guy found the food.

Why shouldn't he write that the guy was looting if he was? Because he's black and he might get insulted and accused of racism by hypersensitive people on the internet?