(no subject)

[theweaselking]

versus



White people "find". Black people "loot".

Edit: Found the other ones I saw earlier but didn't have handy.

Looters hit a drug store in the French Quarter district of New Orleans in New Orleans, Louisiana, following Hurricane Katrina. Fresh floods, fires and looting rode in the destructive wake of Hurricane Katrina, deepening a humanitarian crisis that left hundreds feared dead and sections of New Orleans submerged to the rooftops.(AFP/James Nielsen)



As one person looks through their shopping bag, left, another jumps through a broken window, while leaving a convenience store on the I-10 service road south, in Metairie, La., Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. This photo was taken during a helicopter tour of the area that included the governor of Louisiana. (AP Photo/Bill Feig, Pool)

Note that this isn't a case of all AP photos being "looters" and all AFP photos being "finders" - there's one of each from each service, and in both cases, Yahoo called the blacks "looters" and the whites "finders" or unmentioned.

CNN's captions for the same photos did not make this distinction.

Comments

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

That is pretty fucked up right there...

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

There's at least two other examples of this exact same distinction in Yahoo!'s coverage.

[vagabond27.livejournal.com]

Find em for us?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Done.

[vagabond27.livejournal.com]

You rock, thanks. My wife is gonna love this.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

It's a bullshit distinction, of course, but they're probably going to make the argument that the white couple just "found" the stuff, probably near a store *cough*, while the black guy went into the store and "looted" it. Although, honestly, it's food and considering the situation, nobody should give a fuck; the stores are going to lose all that stock anyway, so whether they "find" it or "loot" it, it doesn't matter.

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

I'm right with you on the food matter, but I think the captions making specific distinctions based on skin color goes beyond whether its justified or not.

[ghandiavelli.livejournal.com]

The woman in the first photo didn't look particulary white to me.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

This has come up in other places, too. I'll recap the responses briefly:

#1: She's light enough to debate the issue - white girl with a tan? Hispanic? Who knows, but the debate is there
#2: Compare to pictures 2 and 3.

[ghandiavelli.livejournal.com]

Sure, my only point is that it isn't black and white.

Haw haw.

You're right though.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

She's probably cajun.
She looks white to me, just with a tan.

[takhisis.livejournal.com]

Well, to be totally persnickety, the last photo doesn't refer to the black or white figures as looters. But yeah, the whole thing is twisted as hell.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The last one is the one where I said the whites are "finders" or unmentioned.

People more snide than me have asked what the caption would be if you cut the frame a little and just showed the black guy jumping out the window.

[takhisis.livejournal.com]

I saw that bit, but I was responding to "Yahoo called the blacks "looters" and the whites "finders" or unmentioned." whereas technically, the black person is also unmentioned. They're both referred to as "person[s]... leaving a convenience store". Like I said, just being persnickety.

I fully agree with the snideness. I'm mainly playing Devil's Advocate, mainly to point out potential argument/denial points other people will probably exploit, I s'pose. I hate seeing crap like this get washed aside because of semantic loopholes.