NationStates Jolt Archive

I haven't see this here yet, so I'll post it.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/#24863

Racism on Yahoo News

Flickr user dustin3000 has some shocking screen-grabs from Yahoo's news service. The captions on two photos from flood victims show very clearly the sinister and subtle ways that racism thrives in this country.

The caption next to a photo of a young black man reads, "A young man walks through chest deep flood water after looting a grocery store in New Orleans on Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005."

Whereas, the caption aside a photo of two young white people reads, "Two residents wade through chest-deep water after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store after Hurricane Katrina came through the area in New Orleans, Louisiana."

What's the difference between "looting" and "finding?" Apparently it's as simple as the color of your skin.

I posted a thread about this yesterday and it got merged into one of the NOLA superthreads, despite not actually being about the storm itself...

I posted a thread about this yesterday and it got merged into one of the NOLA superthreads, despite not actually being about the storm itself...
Yeah, that was annoying. Totally lost track of the topic after that.

I posted a thread about this yesterday and it got merged into one of the NOLA superthreads, despite not actually being about the storm itself...

I was wondering where that thread went. Why the fuck did they do that?

I posted a thread about this yesterday and it got merged into one of the NOLA superthreads, despite not actually being about the storm itself...
I was going to say I thought I ran across this SOMEWHERE

Anyways this sort of thing is disturbing to me how people can unconsciously use descriptors like that without noticing (even more disturbing if this was intentional)
It sets the whole mood for the interpretation

In one they are just poor starving people (white people) getting what they need

In the second one (black) looting sets the mental image of someone stealing a tv out of a shop window rather then them as the white people just taking what they need to subsist

Now Im hearing that rescue/evacuation efforts were suspended because someone is shooting in the direction of helicopters?

I really hope this isnt true.

I was wondering where that thread went. Why the fuck did they do that?
It got merged into this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=441220). Jocabia actually spent a lot of time going through other pictures and captions, and found many examples of blacks 'looting', but none of whites looting.

Now Im hearing that rescue/evacuation efforts were suspended because someone is shooting in the direction of helicopters?

I really hope this isnt true.
I am just waiting for a group of poor starving people to storm the hospitals that the helicopters are evacuating people out of (mostly infants)

It might be racism.

It might be disparity in what was taken.

It might be the difference between walking into a store and breaking into a store.

We don't really know the whole story.

I'd lean towards racism, but we do have to admit the fact that there could be other factors.

Of course, it seems that they both took soda - which is only going to dehydrate them and isn't going to help them in the least.

It got merged into this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=441220). Jocabia actually spent a lot of time going through other pictures and captions, and found many examples of blacks 'looting', but none of whites looting.
Do you have a link to that post? I think it would be most informitive and I dont wish Jacobia's work to go unseen because it got lost in that thread

It got merged into this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=441220). Jocabia actually spent a lot of time going through other pictures and captions, and found many examples of blacks 'looting', but none of whites looting.

Maybe because since the majority of the population is black in New Orleans. If the city was a White majority then maybe it would be different. Besides, what does it if they are black or white? Just a bunch of fucking looters.

It might be racism.

It might be disparity in what was taken.

It might be the difference between walking into a store and breaking into a store.

We don't really know the whole story.

I'd lean towards racism, but we do have to admit the fact that there could be other factors.

Of course, it seems that they both took soda - which is only going to dehydrate them and isn't going to help them in the least.

yah, limited information.

If we could see what they were taking, it would help. EG, if they're taking bread, water, etc... they're trying to survive.

If, on the other hand, they're grabbing computers, guns, video game systems, DVD players, etc... lol... THAT is looting and should (IMO) be punished.

Do you have a link to that post? I think it would be most informitive and I dont wish Jacobia's work to go unseen because it got lost in that thread
Here is one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9554582&postcount=157), and here is another (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9555143&postcount=172) by Neaness actually who went through 599 pics...and one more (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9555423&postcount=188) from Jocabia...

Maybe because since the majority of the population is black in New Orleans. If the city was a White majority then maybe it would be different. Besides, what does it if they are black or white? Just a bunch of fucking looters.
Sorry, I didn't make that clear enough. There are pictures of both whites and blacks with food, or whatever...the whites are never called looters, but the blacks consistantly are, even when they don't seem to have anything in their possession.

I don't consider either group that is taking FOOD to be looting. It's about survivival...and deja vu....

It's that damn liberal bias in the media!

Reread the caption. It says they were 'finding bread and soda from a local grocery store'.

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/photos_ts_afp/050830071810_shxwaoma_photo1

Want more examples:

This woman is just wading through water, but according the caption she's on her way to loot:

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/ts/080304tropicalweathe/im:/050830/480/ladm11608301734;_ylt=AlV5YqAV4MLhQ5v31Y5woyRiWscF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3dmhrOGVvBHNlYwNzc20-

Here's more, all black and ALL on the way to the grocery store:

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/ts/080304tropicalweathe/im:/050830/480/ladm10808301717;_ylt=AtZ4DQpPG77VhkO3g.gENh9iWscF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3dmhrOGVvBHNlYwNzc20-

Here's one of more white people and, oh, look, this time it's 'supplies' even the beer that they have:

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/ts/080304tropicalweathe/im:/050831/ids_photos_ts/r2605159732.jpg

It's about survival. All of them are just trying to survive and people are labeling them as animals and criminals. It's sad and sickening.

I went through every picture. There isn't one single example of a white person in any of the 'looting' pictures. Not one. I found two examples of white people in pictures suggesting they were just doing what it takes to survive. I found black people in a couple of pictures where looting, finding supplies, etc. is not mentioned at all, but it's clear they are in fact taking food (so no description of the action at all). And I found one picture where a black person is floating on something with a garbage bag and the bag is called supplies, but there is no evidence that what's in the bag didn't come from their house, there's nothing to really say to that one. Basically, I checked that and I could find anything that disputes the theory.

Yes, but the problem is I checked 574 different photos that yahoo put up regarding the crisis and not one referred to looting with a white person in the photo. There were at least fifteen or so 'looting' photos. Every one of them contained only minorities. Strange coincidence, don't you think? The two picture we find with white people in them, obviously engaged in the same activities as the other photos, refer to it as 'finding' or 'supplies'. Another strange coincidence, don't you think? And the worst one shows a woman wading through water with no sign of a store in the picture and she is presented as 'on her way to loot'. She just happens to be black. Another strange coincidence, don't you think?

Here are my pertinent posts.

Do you have a link to that post? I think it would be most informitive and I dont wish Jacobia's work to go unseen because it got lost in that thread

JOcAbia, and thank you for your good wishes. I posted them above.

Here are my pertinent posts.


My favorite is the one describing a woman a being "on her way to loot".

My favorite is the one describing a woman a being "on her way to loot".

Yeah, I was floored by that one.

The photo links have changed, now all I get is a helicopter rescue. I strolled through about 20 of them, lots of mentions of how a helicopter was shot at (what the duece?).

I wish I could see the original images. I imagine there was a bit of a scramble at Yahoo.

Who cares, white black or whatnot, shoot them. Don't forget that NO as a city WAS 70% percent black to begin with. Most of the whites and those with more money left.

The photo links have changed, now all I get is a helicopter rescue. I strolled through about 20 of them, lots of mentions of how a helicopter was shot at (what the duece?).

I wish I could see the original images. I imagine there was a bit of a scramble at Yahoo.

That really pisses me off. Why haven't the put the M60s back on the helos? If a guy with a hunting rifle can bring down a police helicopter in full flight then someone with an SKS or AK clone will probably be able to hit one of the USCG choppers that are rescuing people. :mad:

I don't understand the logic behind shooting at the helos. I mean, what are you going to do when you take it down? Fly off with it and loot some more?

:rolleyes:

Yeah, I was floored by that one.


It did occur to me that it is possible the photographer subsequently witnessed her loot, prior to the picture being published, but whats the point?


Now we have armed gangs actually robbing people at gunpoint in their homes and car jacking, so sadly, this situation is being further marred by the human factor.
Its just disgusting. I have always been the type to help my family and myself, as well as those around me. If everyone did a little good, instead of a little bad, the situationmight improve faster and not be so desperate and disgusting.

So then. Media's not so liberal after all now is it?

Who cares, white black or whatnot, shoot them. Don't forget that NO as a city WAS 70% percent black to begin with. Most of the whites and those with more money left.
While I share your hatred when it comes to people robbing others, and stealing TVs and stuff, some of the looting is merely for survival. People have no food or water, and supplies are slow to arrive. Taking food and water from a grocery store is a necessity, and besides, it's not like the food will go to any better purpose. By the time the stores are operational again, the food will have gone bad. It's already lost revenue.

I haven't see this here yet, so I'll post it.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/#24863

Racism on Yahoo News

Flickr user dustin3000 has some shocking screen-grabs from Yahoo's news service. The captions on two photos from flood victims show very clearly the sinister and subtle ways that racism thrives in this country.

The caption next to a photo of a young black man reads, "A young man walks through chest deep flood water after looting a grocery store in New Orleans on Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005."

Whereas, the caption aside a photo of two young white people reads, "Two residents wade through chest-deep water after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store after Hurricane Katrina came through the area in New Orleans, Louisiana."

What's the difference between "looting" and "finding?" Apparently it's as simple as the color of your skin.

What's really sad is that people will use this tragedy to promote their own agenda with doctored photos such as this. What is also sad is that people will believe whatever they see just because someone printed it, without taking a couple of minutes to see that the photo of the "white people" is actually a black girl with a white guy following her who have been picked out of a group of people leaving the area. The photo was digitally altered twice within the area of the girls face and arms, beyond what it would have been for level, contrast or brightness to the entire photo.
The other photo is also altered to intentionally make it to dark to recognise any detail, but a cursory pass to lighten it indicates it may well also be a girl.
I wish people would realize that lame attempts like this only discredit their cause even if it happens to be legitimate.

Liverbreath']What's really sad is that people will use this tragedy to promote their own agenda with doctored photos such as this. What is also sad is that people will believe whatever they see just because someone printed it, without taking a couple of minutes to see that the photo of the "white people" is actually a black girl with a white guy following her who have been picked out of a group of people leaving the area. The photo was digitally altered twice within the area of the girls face and arms, beyond what it would have been for level, contrast or brightness to the entire photo.
The other photo is also altered to intentionally make it to dark to recognise any detail, but a cursory pass to lighten it indicates it may well also be a girl.
I wish people would realize that lame attempts like this only discredit their cause even if it happens to be legitimate.

We originally found the photo on yahoo (it's no longer available). The majority of the people on this thread saw the original photo and if it was doctored, it was doctored by the news source. The girl in the photo definitely appeared to be white. We went through all of this yesterday. We didn't see some mass email. We found the ACTUAL photos.

Found the original source, on Yahoo, where we originally found the issue. The source is credited. The links are broken in my post above, but all the pictures described were there yesterday.

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/photos_ts_afp/050830071810_shxwaoma_photo1

Liverbreath']What's really sad is that people will use this tragedy to promote their own agenda with doctored photos such as this. What is also sad is that people will believe whatever they see just because someone printed it, without taking a couple of minutes to see that the photo of the "white people" is actually a black girl with a white guy following her who have been picked out of a group of people leaving the area. The photo was digitally altered twice within the area of the girls face and arms, beyond what it would have been for level, contrast or brightness to the entire photo.
The other photo is also altered to intentionally make it to dark to recognise any detail, but a cursory pass to lighten it indicates it may well also be a girl.
I wish people would realize that lame attempts like this only discredit their cause even if it happens to be legitimate.
Your reprimand is misplaced. Unless people (like yourself) give others reason to doubt, there is no reason to doubt.

Not everyone has PhotoShop around, and only the cronically suspicious have any reason to enlarge a photo to see if it has been doctored (that must be exhausting for you).

We originally found the photo on yahoo (it's no longer available). The majority of the people on this thread saw the original photo and if it was doctored, it was doctored by the news source. The girl in the photo definitely appeared to be white. We went through all of this yesterday. We didn't see some mass email. We found the ACTUAL photos.

Found the original source, on Yahoo, where we originally found the issue. The source is credited. The links are broken in my post above, but all the pictures described were there yesterday.

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/photos_ts_afp/050830071810_shxwaoma_photo1
The photo link works for me.

The photo links have changed, now all I get is a helicopter rescue. I strolled through about 20 of them, lots of mentions of how a helicopter was shot at (what the duece?).

I wish I could see the original images. I imagine there was a bit of a scramble at Yahoo.

Yeah, it's doing it to me as well. I looked but couldn't find the original photos. It was really sad when I found them in the first place. I don't usually agree with the idea of media bias but this was so blatant.

something i found out yesterday about the two photos in question. Someone said it wasn't Yahoo to blame for the racism.... However, i saw the same photo on MSN photos of the week, and it didn't refer to any type of looting. This makes me to believe that the writer of the caption for yahoo is a bit racist.

We originally found the photo on yahoo (it's no longer available). The majority of the people on this thread saw the original photo and if it was doctored, it was doctored by the news source. The girl in the photo definitely appeared to be white. We went through all of this yesterday. We didn't see some mass email. We found the ACTUAL photos.

Found the original source, on Yahoo, where we originally found the issue. The source is credited. The links are broken in my post above, but all the pictures described were there yesterday.

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/photos_ts_afp/050830071810_shxwaoma_photo1

Yes it is impossible to tell who actually could have touched them up. In fact it is really impossible to tell where the source even got them. I used to work for the Kansas City Star and Houston Chronicle and seen this sort of thing hundreds of times. Photographers have traditionally had hundreds of tricks to tell a story with a picture exactally the way you want, but digital artists have literally 10's of 1000's. Fortunately with just a few examples of a good digital photo that is clean and a few that have been altered even a layman can pick out a doctored one from a clean one, if you have the ability to zoom around 15 or 1600 times and get a good look at how the pixels line up. A clean photo will have much fewer blocks of pixels of the same color. They will look more random that filters and tools will.
Hopefully some day we will progress to the point that there are some sort of professional credientials for journalists, but as it stands now, they are all suspect and subject to the agendas of those they serve.

Liverbreath']Yes it is impossible to tell who actually could have touched them up. In fact it is really impossible to tell where the source even got them. I used to work for the Kansas City Star and Houston Chronicle and seen this sort of thing hundreds of times. Photographers have traditionally had hundreds of tricks to tell a story with a picture exactally the way you want, but digital artists have literally 10's of 1000's. Fortunately with just a few examples of a good digital photo that is clean and a few that have been altered even a layman can pick out a doctored one from a clean one, if you have the ability to zoom around 15 or 1600 times and get a good look at how the pixels line up. A clean photo will have much fewer blocks of pixels of the same color. They will look more random that filters and tools will.
Hopefully some day we will progress to the point that there are some sort of professional credientials for journalists, but as it stands now, they are all suspect and subject to the agendas of those they serve.

It doesn't matter if the photographer touched them up or yahoo did or the paper did. The photographer didn't write the caption. Yahoo posted a picture where the people in it appear to be white with them finding food. They posted other pictures where black people are looting food. There are no pictures of black people (who appear black) finding food and there are no pictures of white people looting food. That's the point. The touchup doesn't matter. It's the way the image was displayed by Yahoo with a caption by Yahoo.

Your reprimand is misplaced. Unless people (like yourself) give others reason to doubt, there is no reason to doubt.

Not everyone has PhotoShop around, and only the cronically suspicious have any reason to enlarge a photo to see if it has been doctored (that must be exhausting for you).

Wellamena, I intended no reprimand until now when it becomes clear that you have an agenda that you want to promote despite what the truth may actually be. To me, misrepresenting, lying, distorting facts or pure propaganda are one and the same, and are equally abrehensible, no matter what one's intentions. If a persons cause is not strong enough to merit consideration on it's own truth, then it is no longer a worthy cause. I believe your's to be one that can stand honestly.

True enough not everyone has PhotoShop. It is a very expensive program, but it is not the only one that can do what you would want. You can get Paint.net now for free which has some very powerful tools, I believe it has zoom capbability that can go that far, but I am not positive.

You may be correct as far as my being cronically suspicious. Ten years in the newspaper business and sixteen in law enforcement is a very sufficient amount of time to learn that as often as they do not, people are more than willing to decieve someone for their own purpose at any given time. As far as exausting...no not all all, it didn't take even 1/10th the amount of time to discover it, than it did to defraud it.

Liverbreath']Wellamena, I intended no reprimand until now when it becomes clear that you have an agenda that you want to promote despite what the truth may actually be. To me, misrepresenting, lying, distorting facts or pure propaganda are one and the same, and are equally abrehensible, no matter what one's intentions. If a persons cause is not strong enough to merit consideration on it's own truth, then it is no longer a worthy cause. I believe your's to be one that can stand honestly.

True enough not everyone has PhotoShop. It is a very expensive program, but it is not the only one that can do what you would want. You can get Paint.net now for free which has some very powerful tools, I believe it has zoom capbability that can go that far, but I am not positive.

You may be correct as far as my being cronically suspicious. Ten years in the newspaper business and sixteen in law enforcement is a very sufficient amount of time to learn that as often as they do not, people are more than willing to decieve someone for their own purpose at any given time. As far as exausting...no not all all, it didn't take even 1/10th the amount of time to discover it, than it did to defraud it.
Excuse me? What is this agenda that I am promoting? You were openly admonishing of people who "believe whatever they see in print"; all I did was point out that that reprimand is unreasonable. If that constitutes an agenda (I assume you mean some sort of racist one??) in your mind, that's your problem, but don't pawn it off as if you speak some sort of truth about me.

I'll thank you to leave your suspicious nature trained on the photos.

And for the record, the PhotoShop comment was actually about PhotoShop. It was saying that not everyone has a photo editor at their disposal.

Having gone through all the pictures, there was only one where the people were 'finding.' The rest of the pictures were all 'looting' and black. However, there were people with 'possessions' who were both white and black. I'm not entirely sure how to decipher that one, but I think that maybe the caption writer had a subconscious racist bent and, without realising it, figured that white people would be innocent and that they must have their possessions.


The girl in the photo could be many races. Someone suggested she was Creole, someone else said they looked like a Caucasian they knew. I doubt a news agent would have the time to digitally alter a picture in the wake of such a fertile news story. :rolleyes:


Another perspective is that, as someone has pointed out, 70% of New Orleans was black to begin with. From what I understand, the Southern United States still has this subtle racism and blacks make less money or have crappier jobs or whatever (Although I'm Canadian and we tend to be a bit biased against Americans). However, I would imagine most of the people left in New Orleans are black. Most of the pictures I saw of people 'waiting' or 'taking their possessions' were also black.


Also, I've found out that there is now a huge problem with rape in New Orleans, both in the Superdome and with gangrapes among the stranded. I find it sad that people are so concerned with catching the looters (front page of my newspaper today - 3 guys in fatigues holding a fourth man (black) at gunpoint because he was under suspicion of looting) that there is able to BE a problem with rape.

Easy definition: finding is when you grab something that floats past you.
looting is when you enter a store/building and take things.

Easy definition: finding is when you grab something that floats past you.
looting is when you enter a store/building and take things.

We're not asking what the difference is. According to the pictures, the difference is the color of your skin. That's the issue.

Easy definition: finding is when you grab something that floats past you. looting is when you enter a store/building and take things.


IIRC, it said they 'found' them in a grocery store.