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.

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.

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 stuff”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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….

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.

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.

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.

Please read the WHOLE LINK!!!

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?