The other day I tried to warn and convince many of you not to go lookin’ for the klansman behind every bush in this tragic situation. The pictures that have been circulating the Internet like wildfire depicting two different captions have a small detail most folks missed.
What is a wire service?
A news agency, such as Canadian Press or Reuters, created to share or distribute news stories and photographs to member organizations.
What this is saying is that a wire service is a network of news agencies that share images, news stories, etc. For example, the same image that accompanies a particular story in Courier Post may be used in the Los Angeles Times with a different caption.
Check out the image below—
These pictures were taken by two different photographers from two different news agencies FROM TWO DIFFERENT WIRE SERVICES!!!
Anytime you do a news image search in yahoo, it is going to bring up images from VARIOUS news services. YAHOO IS NOT A NEWS SERVICE.
Please read below to understand what I am saying here–
It’s difficult to draw any substantiated conclusions from these photographs’ captions. Although they were both carried by many news outlets, they were taken by two different photographers and came from two different services, Associated Press (AP) and Getty Images via Agence France-Presse (AFP). These services may have different stylistic standards for how they caption photographs, or the dissimilar wordings may have been due to nothing more than the preferences of different photographers and editors, or the difference might be the coincidental result of a desire to avoid repetitive wording (similar photographs from the same news services variously describe the depicted actions as “looting,” “raiding,” “taking,” “finding,” and “making off”). The viewer also isn’t privy to the contexts in which the photographs were taken  it’s possible that in one case the photographer actually saw his subject exiting an unattended grocery store with an armful of goods, while in the other case the photographer came upon his subjects with supplies in hand and could only make assumptions about how they obtained them. (PLEASE READ THE REST SO THAT YOU CAN BE FULLY INFORMED!!)
So in other words, “if you don’t know then________!!” (you fill in the rest)
In the end, you are going to believe what you want to believe. All I can do is point out the details.
In the words of the website hotghettomess.com…
We got to do better!
We ASSUMED that whites were stereotyping us—
We just did it to them!!!
Here is another tidbit for those who still believe Amerikkka still lacks any care for black folks. Remember Harvey Jackson? According to Fox News, he has received a huge outpouring of letters of concern, people that want to help him, money, etc. from people all over America (sorry, Amerikkka)!
—–
Sphere: Related Content
September 3rd, 2005 at 7:22 am
Finish the questions, don’t just end there.
They were near a store when the pictures were taken. The picture taker ASSUMED the people picked up the food as it floated by, but does not know for sure. He did not ask.
Why did the picture taker ASSUME they did it that way vs. looting?
September 3rd, 2005 at 8:40 am
Ed,
Please read the WHOLE LINK!!!
September 3rd, 2005 at 9:23 am
We don’t read and it gets us into trouble…moving on… I just read the statement by Kanye West. Yes he has a right to free speech. But at a time when money is being donated by all people regardless of political affiliation, it’s no time to politicize one person. He could have made a statement like “Government dropped the ball” , but blaimin everything on “one man” in a televised cast is going to do damage in raising the funds needed. Sometimes one has to find the appropiate avenues to make complaints . Oh well. This country is so divided by Race, economics etc. I wonder if true religion makes any impact at all. When will we be able to look at the good and bad of “all people no matter what race?. As Kwame said “not all republicans are bad, and not all democrats are good”.
September 3rd, 2005 at 6:28 pm
I did. And this is what made me write what I did.
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.
Would that opinion had been different if he saw Black people with the goods? He said he snapped the best picture. He didn’t say he also saw Black people with goods. He said he saw other people in the water.
September 3rd, 2005 at 7:31 pm
Let me ask you something Ed,
Are you this analytical when we as blacks make stereotypical assumptions about whites? Or do you just dismiss it as just a misunderstanding? This question may appear to be off the subject, but the point is very clear.
“…I looked for the best picture.”
Why does it appear that you find it hard to take this man at his word?
Because I do not know this photographer (and I assume [uh oh, I'm using that word too] that you don’t know him either), what is the problem of taking him at his word? Why is it OK for we as the black community to pre-judge without even knowing this guy, but when others make similar assumptions about us, we see to it that there is hell to pay?
What if it was discovered that this photographer was part black and made this assumption? Would we give him the ol’ wink-wink” and dismiss it as one big misunderstanding or would we see him as a person who hates his race?
I asked a lot of questions here not necessarily for you to answer all of them. These are just questions that came to me as I was typing.
September 3rd, 2005 at 11:27 pm
Stop Uncle Tomming over here. The truth is that there was media bias. Im sure if I look long enough I can find and “excuse” for anything but our portrayal is unexcuseable. You’d better decide whose side you are on!
September 4th, 2005 at 6:37 am
re you this analytical when we as blacks make stereotypical assumptions about whites? Or do you just dismiss it as just a misunderstanding? This question may appear to be off the subject, but the point is very clear.
Actually, I am. In fact, on an email list, I questioned the idea of the recent report concerning racial profiling and the administration demoting someone because of it.
To make it clear, as it was being reported, Blacks were being stopped at compariable rates to other drivers, but were searched more and arrested more. I questioned if the Blacks were being stopped more for legitimate cause or not. That wasn’t clear, one way or the other, from the media reports I read.
If they were stopped more for cause, then the higher arrest rates seemed reasonable. That’s in contrast to stats that showed Blacks were stopped at a higher rate for drug searches, but the rate of finding drugs were statistically equal for whites.
Why does it appear that you find it hard to take this man at his word?
Because I’ve been dealing with the media and race issues at one point or another since the 7th grade. In situations that turned racial that I have witnessed or have trusted first hand accounts, the “mainstream” media coverage, 95% of the time, has been wrong. For example, a fight between two groups of kids, both groups being inter-racial, was turned into a “white vs. Black” fight in the media.
Why is it OK for we as the black community to pre-judge without even knowing this guy
The “in my opinion” part opens up the questions of bias. It could be racial, economic, social, or whatever. I don’t care. Black people are subject to “anti-Black” biases as well. Like Blacks who think Black businesses are lessor than white businesses without doing any fact checking. To me, a good example of a person with a strong anti-Black bias is Jesse Lee Peterson.
September 4th, 2005 at 9:37 am
Since when did critical thinking become “Uncle Tomming”? If we dont’ all jump on the “Group Think” train we become Uncle Toms? If you don’t like being generalized by the media or anyone else, then let then man have his own opinion, lest everyone else be able to prepackage and sell “Blackness”…oh right, they already do that, and they’re making a killing off of it. When you only question the perceived enemy and you don’t question from within, you will perish as a people.
September 4th, 2005 at 11:25 am
When you only question the perceived enemy and you don’t question from within, you will perish as a people.
Agreed. But Black Americans have to be the most internally questioning people in the U.S.
The idea that Blacks “speak behind closed doors” is a farce. It’s mentioned on Black talk radio. It’s mentioned in Black print media. The idea about Blacks “speaking behind closed doors” rests on the idea that it’s “behind closed doors” because media appointed “Black leaders” aren’t QUOTED as saying certain things. Then, critics of the American Black community say that because those “leaders” aren’t saying things, it isn’t being said.
False.
Then those same critics will say that those “Black leaders” don’t speak for all Blacks.
True.
Then those same critics will say that the Black community, in general, is being “lead” by the “Black leaders”.
Then those same critics will point out where the “Black leaders” are not sychronized with the general Black community.
Ummm….
September 4th, 2005 at 12:03 pm
The “in my opinion†part opens up the questions of bias. It could be racial, economic, social, or whatever. I don’t care.
But with a large amount of negroes doing the “looting”, “taking” whatever for WHATEVER reason (most of the city is black), does this man (again, he only took one of the two pictures that are going around) deserve to be hammered?I think that anyone given the environment would have called it the same thing. Especially since the wide shot of the actual store he mentions shows most of US up in there.
Whereas for the white folks in the other picture, according to the photographer they “found” the items they were carrying floating near the store. They didn’t go into the store.
What most people have been asking is “when is looting alright”? Bottom line, if ya’ hungry loot or die. My black butt will be on aisle 9 trying to help get my spam and pok’ and beans on. My wife would be on aisle 6 getting the diapers and “her stuff”
**yeah, my head is hurting now from all of this
!
====
The idea that Blacks “speak behind closed doors†is a farce. It’s mentioned on Black talk radio
False
Not everything we say “behind closed doors” is broadcasted on talk radio.
The times many of us talk about whites (physical features, their lack of understanding anything that is cultural, etc. etc.) cannot be numbered. Get a bunch of us in a room for a day and you know as well as I the stereotyping will show its ugly head. Then in many cases when we get in front of the very people we were stereotyping, we switch up. Heck, even my own parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, knew the deal. Yes, I know, not all blacks do this, but neither do all whites.
Off subject, but Newt’s call for FORMER Mayor Gulianni to take over this situation is sickening.
September 4th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Get a bunch of us in a room for a day and you know as well as I the stereotyping will show its ugly head.
That is known and displayed in public. Just look at the Black “comedians” showcased on BET or HBO. But also notice how they stereotype Blacks. Forget them, since they are “entertainers”, but listen to Black radio, and it’s displayed there as well.
September 4th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
[I added a comment before your last comment]
That is known and displayed in public.
But not in the close arena of the typical workplace. Just like many of us are quick to say that Jesse and Al don’t speak for us, neither does Steve Harvey or Cedric.So we can’t or should’nt expect that whites think that way when they watch Comedy central. Its one thing to express those feelings in a comedy, its another thing to express those feeling in the workplace. That is why many usually wait until either break or after work to express those feelings. We dare not do it in the workplace.
September 4th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
SInce I work for a newspaper, I don’t need you to define what a wire service is or it’s functions.
An e-mail associate says hse saw the picture of the young Black male on Wednesday with a caption conveying “he had secured food for his family.”
SO the quetsion is “how did the caption get changed?”
I have often wondered if Duane is white…because he seems to waste a lot of energy *apologizing/explaining* for whites’ behavior.
“The viewer also isn’t privy to the contexts in which the photographs were taken ‗
As a diversity workshop facilitator, I well understand the need for editorial overview, but that didn’t happen in this case.
Before posting both pictures to Yahoo, they should have been able to predict the response…and therefore should have included the context for both pictures.
Two, the first thing many were thinking was “how did the photographer know the context?!”
“they were taken by two different photographers and came from two different services, Associated Press (AP) and Getty Images via Agence France-Presse (AFP).”
BUT THEY WERE POSTED ON THE ***SAME*** WEBSITE…THEREBY RENDERING THE ARGUMENT YOU’RE MAKING IMPOTENT.
John L.
September 4th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
does this man (again, he only took one of the two pictures that are going around) deserve to be hammered?I
I think it’s fair to question the press on EVERY story. Right now, conservatives are having a field day with so-called liberal bias. The media has a bias, but when those biases work in the conservative way, and they do, then the conservatives don’t say a thing. For example, newspapers, probably because of affirmative action within their own companies, do not promote a pro-affirmative action view, at least mainstream newspapers.
Notice how the Black newspaper reporter from the NYT got hammered but not the reporter from USA Today.
My black butt will be on aisle 9 trying to help get my spam and pok’ and beans on. My wife would be on aisle 6 getting the diapers and “her stuffâ€Â
My wife agrees. I agree.
Off subject, but Newt’s call for FORMER Mayor Gulianni to take over this situation is sickening.
Agreed. Espeically since all of New York was not destroyed. Just one section.
We dare not do it in the workplace.
Speaking politics or “social issues” in the workplace is inappropriate.
Period.
I was told that by my relatives and witnessed what happened to the work environment when people didn’t follow that bit of advice. In the “best” case, harrassement complaints were made. I was asked to voice my opinions lots of times on one issue in particular. I always smiled and said I’m not getting involved because I like working with all of you.
In the end, I proved to handle it correctly, as many of the people involved in the mess later stated.
September 5th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
Yeah.
I learned a looooooooooooooooong time ago to keep my mouth shut on political and racial issues on the job. People are people and I don’t care what “workshop” you voice those opinions, it won’t be too long before you’ll find out that your e-mail account doesn’t work and phone has no dial tone.
September 6th, 2005 at 9:44 am
I’m just curious as to what those who are caught up with a few photos are doing to help those who have been devastated by Hurricane Katrina. These people need assistance (in many forms) RIGHT NOW, not your viewpoints on what is or is not a form of racism. When the evacuees have been taken care of and their lives have reached a point where they are at least half-way back on their feet, then will be an appropriate time to voice opinions about acts of discrimination, etc. Until then, let’s keep this about the thousands of men, women & children who survived this catastrophe and are STILL in need of shelter, medical assistance, food, clothing and financial assistance, to name a few. I have, and will continue, to donate my time and much needed items. Any blame or frustration that I want to cast towards anyone else can be done in the form of a letter to the appropriate person(s).
September 8th, 2005 at 10:45 am
I’ll start by saying I’m white, so those here who believe I’m not entitled to an opinion on the topic can get on with their lives and not read the rest of my comment.
Before posting both pictures to Yahoo, they should have been able to predict the response…and therefore should have included the context for both pictures.
That statement is actually very accurate–and it raises a significant question. The context, explanation, sources, and/or relevance of the photos should have been included. It was not. There are two possibilities, the first being that Yahoo! news simply collects data with little or no oversight (about a 50/50 chance, because they do seem to pick-and-choose their stories from time to time, but with the flood of media coverage, policies may have been relaxed in the name of getting information out), or they fully understood the implications of running the two captioned photographs.
What many people (of all ethnicities) don’t realize is that “wedges” driven between races is big business in this company. Racial and ethnic harmony don’t directly make money. So long as there is animosity between two races, there will be organizations and groups in line to reap the fiscal rewards of the conflict, no matter how much of the dissention is real as opposed to invented through selective reporting. I’ll stop short of calling this practice “hatemongering,” but it does border on that term in many cases, as it fosters distrust and discord that would not otherwise exist.
Please understand that I’m not dismissing the issue as if no racial problems exist in America (that is an absurd claim), but I offer that the media serves organizations at times that seem to rest their fiscal futures upon a continuance of the strife they claim to oppose, siphoning monies from the people they claim to represent, while doing little if anything to make things actually better for those people.
Tam: bravo on the observation. It’s a pity, and indicative of the far-left’s motives, that so many are using this disaster for nothing more than a tool to forward their political agenda. Real people need help, and will continue to need help for years to come. To use their plight to play political games is loathsome. Sadly, that mentality has become quite common in liberal circles.