The article about looting in the journal today showed just how frivolous those pesky victims are being. The stolen items listed were beverages (including bottled water), food, diapers, medication, and clothing.
Hmmmmm......
And how brilliant finding the "looters" versus "finders" references. Damn.
yeah, JD has an eagle eye like that.
great post marjorie!
This makes my blood boil. So irresponsible! So BLATANT!!!
Grrr...
Thanks to Justin for this eye-opener.
Hey, I saw this on BoingBoing.net today today too!
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/
0...le_loot_wh.html
Thanks for posting it on M-Pyre, Marjorie.
The two pics and captions came from two different agencies/writers, which makes the issue a little less clear than it looks at first.
Interesting notes on this in the above-mentioned BoingBoing comments.
Just pointing out that it wasn't the same person sitting there calling pictures with people of color 'looters' and pictures of white people 'finders'.
One photographer might have called all grocery-holding people he photographed 'finders' in the reports he filed and vice-versa.
Just to clarify, I don't think the caption for the second picute is from the AP (Associated Press). I think it was actually from the AFP (Agence France-Presse).
More on this and why it might make a difference can be found in the reader comments on Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments...236/013/
241#241
The thing is, Saleem, there are droves of pictures all over the internet of black folks being called looters after taking food and clothing from stores. These two pictures are presented together on slide shows, regardless of who took them. The point is not that the same person or even the same agency took them, but rather something that is a common representation in our society--that black folks are criminals. It's a quite common misrepresentation.
My primary point is that it is an egregious representation by the press--to call desperate people looters. Here is an even better photo of this:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?
tmpl=...ladm11608301734
Does that woman look like a "looter"??
What about these people?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?
tmpl=...ladm10808301717
The word "looter" carries criminal connotations--it is meant to be applied to people who take items out of greed.
The press should be ashamed to apply this term across the board to the poor black folks in New Orleans who are simply trying to survive this catastrophe. We're not talking about isolated incidents--one or two reporters--but across the board. It's the misapplication of that term to an entire community.
Am I saying there isn't genuine looting happening in New Orleans? No I am not.
But I am saying that these particular images, of which there are many, have been labelled a certain way and burned into the collective memory of this country.
Please find me some photos of white folks being called looters. There are probably some out there.
Bush made a statement today calling for "zero tolerance" for "looting." He communicated that to the Attorney General. What do you think he asked the penalty be for "finding"? I guarantee the vast majority of those charged with "looting" will be minority. White "finders" will be ignored.
We've seen this forever in the enforcement of traffic regulations and drug charges.
you guys ought to be ashamed of yourself. These journalists are literally risking life and limb to bring you the story, and this is the best you can do??
First, the AP photographer literally saw the black person go into the store and loot it. Hence he was labeled a looter.
Here's what the AFP photographer, Chris Graythen, who labeled the white people with groceries as "finders" had to say:
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.
Derek: Did you read what I wrote above?
It *is* shameful to call that young man a "looter" when he is simply trying to feed himself and his family during a complete breakdown of the social order. Look at his face. Does he look like a "plunderer", a "looter", a criminal?
I don't care who that reporter is. Obviously he is not in the dire straits that this young man finds himself in, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to post his pictures to the internes would he?
The point is that press captions and headlines carry a lot of weight in setting public perception.
washington post today has an article weighing in on the distinctions between looters and survivors. They interviewed some academic who studies crisis situations around the world. He agrees there are distinctions to be made that largely get ignored in media reports.
"Carried Away: Looting Has Its Roots in the Chaos of Catastrophe"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...5083102681.html
Marjorie:
If you take things from a store during the a breakdown of the social order, you are a looter. That's just calling a spade a spade. If you're taking food to feed your family, then I'm sure most people would say it's justified ... but it's still looting.
But what really irked me about your post -- and so many other bloggers' -- is the inspid use of the "race card." These were not analogous situations, which you would have realized if you had done some research.
Alrighty then, here we go--one more in a long line of reactionaries throwing the term "race card" around.
Go ahead and live in your fantasy land where race doesn't exist. But don't think I'm going to.
Please, do tell me in all honesty if you don't see racial stratification in who got left behind in New Orleans?
But before you come back, consult your dictionary for the meaning of the words: "nuance" and "connotation" and see if you can then grasp what I am saying in my post and in my reply to you.
My point certainly isn't that race doesn't exist, or that there aren't racial issues involved in the disaster relief.
But you're just joining in the reactionary attack on the free press, so common from both the left and the right these days.
Also, speaking of nuance ... another point: the AP didn't call anyone a "looter." It said a young man had engaged in "looting." There is a distinction there, I think. If I take a loaf of bread that doesn't belong to me to feed my family ... it'd be really Orwellian to argue I hadn't committed a theft. But would it be right to call me a "thief"? Hmm.
Calling these folks "looters" is happening whole sale by photographers and reporters.
As a student of nuance, you should realize that there's a difference between using the word "looters" generically; running a photo of someone that calls them a "looter"; and running a photo of someone that says he is a "young man" who has "looted" a grocery store.
In any case, crying "racism" at the first hint of a racial disparity is inspid, and causes people not to take real racism seriously. As it turned out, there was a very reasonable explanation for why the people in one picture were said to have found the groceries, vs. the other was said to have looted them. (In the first case, the groceries were floating in floodwater; in the second, the photographer had watched the young man take the groceries from a store).
But did any of you bloggers think about doing a little research before making these wild accusations? Maybe emailing the AP, or the photographers involved, and asking for an explanation?
Derek:
I clearly stated in my remarks to Saleem above that there are droves of pictures online by photographers that call black people with food and beverages from gorcery stores "looters". And, I have quite rationally laid out why I think the application of that word is inappropriate and that, yes, I do believe it is a part and parcel of a deep-seated racial bias to found throughout this country.
Furthermore, these two pictures are presented as *examples*. This is not "the first hint" of racial disparity, but rather part of a larger pattern that I have talked about extensively on this blog. Do your own research.
As for whether or not I emailed the photographers--I didn't but I know several people who did. And, obviously enough people did it becuase both of them had to explain themselves. But, really, it doesn't matter what they say after the fact, aside from the value it has in making them more aware of the larger context. Because the caption they present with the picture is where they speak. That is what is out there circulating, informing public opinion. Not only should they, but I'm sure they do expect criticism of their work--as it stands.
Now, please spare me further insipid debate with you.
Easy guys. There's no one lacking in flavor or zest here 
It's not about winning or losing a debate, it's about having a discussion.
..."Does the wholesale application of this term in New Orleans demonstrate the inability to grasp nuance, to apply correct connotative values to words, or does it demonstrate deep-seated unthinking bias?"...
My guess is that it was a slightly misguided attempt to prevent situations like this from happening.
I bet they figured they were safe just using the word "looting" for all taking from stores, that way they wouldn't have to deal with the fall-out of individual photographers labeling some situations "looting" and some "taking". And, yes, maybe that policy lacks nuance, but I can understand why they'd do it, even if it was a mistake.
Working in a newsroom is hard. Decisions have to be made incredibly fast, especially on the web side. People, especially people in the blogosphere, want info really fast. I'm only 26, and when I worked in newsrooms I could see the change happening.
It's much harder to edit photos and captions from multiple sources when readers expect them in real-time. Mistaken policies should be changed, of course, I'm just saying that I understand why they might have been in place.
I think people's motives DO matter after the fact. In a perfect world, everyone's work would come out exactly right on the first go and people would understand what one meant when one wrote it.
But that's not always the case. Because of these images, Graythen's been called a racist (explicitly or impicitly) on plenty of sites. He's received tons of hate mail.
But when you read his full explanation, it doesn't seem at all like he's a racist.
His explanation just makes sense. And we should acknowledge a good explanation, even after the fact, especially if it will prevent a man from wrongly receiving hate mail.
One unfortunate aspect of the blogosphere is that it can become a feedback-loop, where linking to fresh material can become more important than providing fresh insight and information.
Sometimes I'd rather see my favorite blogs post fewer stories, but do more research.
[I don't mean that as a criticism of this blog, just a comment on blogging in general.]
"My guess is that it was a slightly misguided attempt to prevent situations like this from happening."
i don't think this at all. rather, if anything is a feedback loop its the circular reinforcement that happens in the media--words picked up and used mindlessly from one reporter to another.
sad for graythen that his photo is the one used as an example. it could have been someone else. as i have attempted to get across on this thread multiple times, my problem is not with individuals but with the media as an institution. the media operates as a system that wields enormous power in our society. and it is highly sophisticated for this reason it is continually critiqued--and rightly so. that means that individual reporters and photographers are open to critique. i reject that their choice of words and imagery are outside the political realm, somehow above it all.
you can see this perspective throughout this blog in posts i have written. for this reason, i don't think this post is inconsistent, i do think the media *as a whole* should be ashamed, and i do recognize that some in the media are rectifying this wholesale use of the terms "looting" or "looter" or "loot".
I guess I just wish that people would excerpt or link to Graythem's explanation of the incident as prominently as they posted his photo as an example of institutional racism.
Fair enough that you're criticizing an institution. But the fallout from this particular example hits one person.
People were quick to imply "Here's an example of racism." Now they should just as prominintly say "The caption on the finder's photo isn't actually racist. Sorry about that one."
My point is that it *is* racist, in an institutional sense.
Graythem chooses to take his photos, label them and put them out there to represent reality. I do the same kind of thing with this blog. Both he and I by putting our perspectives out there prominently open ourselves to critique--and we can both take it, as this thread demonstrates.
I think when we use specific examples, we're not just criticising institutions. We're also criticising the individuals involved. Which is fine if the individuals have done something wrong.
When I read Graythen's explanation, I don't see a guy committing an act of racism. I think he used the right word for what he saw. Maybe that's the specific point we disagree on.
Look: if you're taking things without permission during a disaster or civil unrest ... that's looting. It doesn't matter if you're starving, or want a new TV. And it doesn't matter if you're black or white.
At least, that's my opinion ...if you can find me a better definition in a dictionary somewhere, please share it.
And as a reporter, of course I expect public criticism of my work. But sometimes it seems like people don't want to take the time to understand what they're criticising, and why we make the decisions we do.
Saleem: By that standard we could never critique institutions, or systems for that matter, because we'd have to continually go off on tangents about what the individuals actually meant.
Fundamentally, my point isn't that Graythem has done anything wrong per se, as an individual. It's that his representation is part and parcel of a larger picture. Of course his work can be used as an example. In fact, he ought to find this entire discussion interesting.
You and I don't necessarily disagree at all. In fact the point you make about looking at individual motives is what makes press analysis so complex in the first place.
I think the representation of black people taking care of their most pressing needs for food and water as *looters* is consistent with history.
And for pictures to show up calling white people *finders* is also consistent.
Regardless of who took the pictures and for what reason they labelled the pictures in a certain way, the overall representation is consistent with the cultural bias to be found in this country historically.
For once in my life, actually, I'm finding a lot of agreement with my position in the mainstream press.
I appreciate all the time you've taken to write these responses. I'm going to use bullets, which always looks a little snarkey, but it just makes it easier for me to organize my thoughts.
-"By that standard we could never critique institutions, or systems for that matter, because we'd have to continually go off on tangents about what the individuals actually meant."
I don't think wouldn't mean that we have to always shoot off on tangents. It would mean that we have to take some time to think about whether the individual motives are a legitimate concern. It slows things down a touch to try to think about individual motives, but I don't think it derails them.
- Just because an example is "consistent with the cultural bias to be found in this country historically" doesn't make it a good example.
Let's say I had a video of a tan-skinned dude came into your office and you responding really slowly to his requests.
And I also had a video of a white dude walking into an office down the street, and someone responding really quickly to his request.
Those two videos would be consistent with a cultural bias (i.e. the way people of color sometimes receive poor service in America). But would it be a good example? No. Because there's the possibility that your action had nothing to do with race, if, for example you were just slower in responding to EVERYONE than the office down the street, right?
So it's an example that's consistent, but still not a good example. Because there's not enough correlation between the two examples, they don't support the hypothesis. They're both part of the 'office system' which has a problem with racism, but...
- Graythen, after losing all his stuff in a flood, came home to an inbox full of hatemail. This happened even though it seems that he did nothing racist. But racism is a very hard charge to shake.
You could argue that his problems are collateral damage that might be necessary in a media debate. But in this case, I think the debate could have occurred without this collateral damage. It just would have meant slowing down a bit with the speed of posting, and making sure that the example was a solid one.
Like I said, Graythen being a journalist can pretty much take care of himself. I really believe that. He puts himself out there, takes it upon himself to apply labels and inserts his images into the collective landscape. In this case, he inserted his image into a landmine that rests on a profound and deeply rooted racism.
Commenting by HaloScan
