Comments on: Photographers respond to New Orleans racial bias photos

Photographers respond to New Orleans racial bias photos

Brian James — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:42:24 -0800

Looting vs Finding Chris Graythen, an AFP photographer in New Orleans (skip down to his post) who shot the photo of two white people "finding" goods in the floodwaters, defends his caption. "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." Meanwhile, the editor for the photog of the "looting" image says that he actually saw the looting occur. "'He saw the person go into the shop and take the goods,' Stokes said, 'and that's why he wrote 'looting' in the caption.'"

By: davidmsc

davidmsc — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:46:55 -0800

Sounds about right. It amazes me when people find racism where none exists. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, people.

By: Mach5

Mach5 — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:47:39 -0800

For those of you who don't feel like clicking through ads, here's the caption writers actual quote: "I believed in my opinion, that they did simply find them, and not 'looted' them in the definition of the word," he writes. "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."

By: quadog

quadog — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:53:49 -0800

If only electronics floated. That would spare everyone the trouble of having to go into the stores to find things.

By: jikel_morten

jikel_morten — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:54:24 -0800

I didn't actually think I'd be right when I wrote this...

By: Rothko

Rothko — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:56:52 -0800

It amazes me when people deny innate racism can be subtle, but is present nonetheless. Heads in the sand, heads in the sand.

By: tsarfan

tsarfan — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:06:15 -0800

By: Dean Keaton

Dean Keaton — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:09:26 -0800

This is all George Bush and co's fault! (I have nothing to add)

By: anthill

anthill — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:12:13 -0800

Rothko, nice, those are some excellent tests... very insightful.

By: Malor

Malor — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:14:55 -0800

Rothko, after getting that FPP pulled for ridiculous flights of fancy, you might want to back off a bit on the righteous condemnation stuff. Sometimes, there's just no link, no matter how badly you might wish there were.

By: jikel_morten

jikel_morten — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:17:50 -0800

I want to believe the photographer, but either he's covering his ass (and lying) or he's a rotten writer. Surely he must have known what people would have thought if they read the line about "finding" food INSIDE a store. posted by tsarfan at 1:06 AM EST on September 2 [!] Where does it say 'inside' the store? Also: Flickr Mirror. Yahoo Statement.

By: uncanny hengeman

uncanny hengeman — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:22:38 -0800

Oh dear.

By: realcountrymusic

realcountrymusic — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:23:40 -0800

This is a bizarre controversy. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. Or New Orleans drowns.

By: jimray

jimray — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:26:52 -0800

This was such a non-story from the get go. Two different, unaffiliated photo agencies run photographs by two different photographers of the same event and they have different captions. Just because Yahoo happens to aggregate wire service photos, folks went ape shit. Add "loot vs find" to the list of man bites dog, film at eleven cliches and move along.

By: uncanny hengeman

uncanny hengeman — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:29:21 -0800

This is a bizarre controversy. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. Or New Orleans drowns. Yeah, how 'bout you whining ninnies take it to the Natalee Holloway thread.

By: billysumday

billysumday — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:45:45 -0800

realcountrymusic: This is a bizarre controversy. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. Or New Orleans drowns. I couldn't agree with you more. Of all the shit that is happening, this is what some of you people choose to get outraged over?

By: Ynoxas

Ynoxas — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:45:58 -0800

Stupid.

By: Rothko

Rothko — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:58:03 -0800

Sometimes, there's just no link, no matter how badly you might wish there were. Sometimes, there's just a link, no matter how badly you might wish there wasn't.

By: Citizen Premier

Citizen Premier — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:06:24 -0800

Hmm, I had figured the writer had simply alternated between find/loot in order to add verbal flavor. By the way, the implicit association tests are a load of horse shit.

By: mikojava

mikojava — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:10:37 -0800

I still want to see pictures of Asian people with captions saying they are "ninjaing" items from a store

By: Ynoxas

Ynoxas — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:12:28 -0800

By the way, the implicit association tests are a load of horse shit. posted by Citizen Premier at 1:06 AM CST on September 2 [!] Correct. What they measure is your ability to adapt to the technical component of the test.

By: Rothko

Rothko — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:19:45 -0800

By the way, the implicit association tests are a load of horse shit. Translation: "Peer-reviewed research I don't agree with is a load of horse shit, because it doesn't agree with my prior assumptions." FWIW, most of the informed criticism of IAT and the like tend to examine methodological problems, and do not question the inherent argument being made regarding the presence of unconscious factors.

By: Citizen Premier

Citizen Premier — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:28:47 -0800

I'm fucking glad I have unconcious thoughts, because they solve a lot of problems my concious is too lazy to deal with. By the way, this is the second time I took the implicit association test for arab muslims and it said I had "a strong automatic preference for Arab Muslims." Last time it said I had a weak distaste for them. Both are wrong. The reason for the flip in the results was that the last time I took it (a couple months ago) the muslim-good part came after the muslim-bad part, and this time it was the reverse. All it shows is that the brain has trouble switching associations with buttons.

By: Citizen Premier

Citizen Premier — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:29:46 -0800

And "peer-reviewed" is a buzzword. Something can be talked about in the scientific community and still be horse shit.

By: Rothko

Rothko — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:39:52 -0800

CP, so that you know what the term really means, "peer review" is a process where the subject matter discussed in a paper is passed before many critical eyes before getting published. Experimental procedures and data are criticized for faults in reasoning and methods. If the paper doesn't make the cut, it doesn't get published. Researchers get grant money from getting published in (good) journals. If they don't publish, they lose their jobs. Further, we're not talking about one or two papers here and there, but a body of work spanning a number of respected publications in the field. There are valid criticisms of these tests but you haven't made one, yet, that isn't based primarily on your prior expectation of results.

By: nightchrome

nightchrome — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:40:55 -0800

I still want to see pictures of Asian people with captions saying they are "ninjaing" items from a store Quoted for truth.

By: hoskala

hoskala — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:08:23 -0800

When looking at news photos from New Orleans I see mostly black or hispanic people. They didn't have the means to evacuate. White people had. What is systematic racism if this isn't? And now the National Guard is allowed to shoot to kill...

By: Tlogmer

Tlogmer — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:22:05 -0800

The reason for the flip in the results was that the last time I took it (a couple months ago) the muslim-good part came after the muslim-bad part, and this time it was the reverse. All it shows is that the brain has trouble switching associations with buttons. Except that in the actual studies, the researchers looked at the data in aggregate and so were able to correct for that. But yeah. This is a really fucking stupid thing to get worked up about right now.

By: Jezztek

Jezztek — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:57:42 -0800

Sometimes, there's just a link, no matter how badly you might wish there wasn't. As a person who scored in the ultra minority of less then 5% with strong innate positive bias towards black faces in the innate bias test I took last year at my college, I gotta say: You obviously are driven by dogma in this case. You remind me of my fundamentalist relatives that in every situation start with the conclusion and work backwards plying the evidence as it suits their preconceived belief system. Is there racism in the US? Hell yeah, no denying it. Was this an example of said racism? Only in your self contained constantly reaffirming world. Now instead of inventing racism where there is none, how about we actually take time to focus on real examples? Hmmmmm?

By: Joeforking

Joeforking — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:04:14 -0800

~~The Point~~ Metafilter: You see what you want to see, and you hear what you want to hear.

By: jimjam

jimjam — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:08:00 -0800

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!

By: Rothko

Rothko — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:49:50 -0800

As a person who scored in the ultra minority of less then 5% with strong innate positive bias towards black faces in the innate bias test I took last year at my college, I gotta say... I never expressed an opinion either way on the photographer's motives in this or any other discussion. Feel free to quote me otherwise. I simply questioned the blanket assertion that racism is not involved, when it very well may be, albeit in a subtle form that the person may not be comfortable admitting to, for obvious professional reasons. Clearly there are folks here uncomfortable with acknowledging the research that's been done, since it challenges deeply held -- almost "dogmatic", to use your generalization -- opinions. For all we know, the AP photographer could be under a lot of pressure from management to clear up any "misunderstandings", right or wrong, if he wants to keep selling photos. We just don't know. Certainly I have no conclusive evidence either way, just the contrast of one person's word (or one manager's word) against the online impressions from his many readers. How "dogmatic" is it to assume categorically -- without any questioning whatsoever -- that racism doesn't exist in this situation, when media coverage of catastrophes has carried racial baggage in the past? (And does now, albeit in ways unrelated to the discussion about this photographer's phrasing of his captions?) How jaw-droppingly naive is it to ignore the past and present of racial bias in the media in the consideration of this discussion?

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 02:28:28 -0800

Rothko : "I never expressed an opinion either way on the photographer's motives in this or any other discussion. Feel free to quote me otherwise. "I simply questioned the blanket assertion that racism is not involved, when it very well may be, albeit in a subtle form that the person may not be comfortable admitting to, for obvious professional reasons." Actually, no, you said it amazed you when people did "foo" (the opposite of "bar"), while no-one had actually done "foo", so the most logical way to interpret it was that you were saying that the situation in question was actually "bar". On reading your followup, it appears you were saying it amazed you when people did "foo", not in relation to this issue. Which prompts me to add my own observation: I'm amazed that some people like Diet Coke for the taste.

By: Rothko

Rothko — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 02:39:48 -0800

Actually, no, you said it amazed you when people did "foo" (the opposite of "bar"), while no-one had actually done "foo", so the most logical way to interpret it was that you were saying that the situation in question was actually "bar". *sigh* Read the very first comment in this thread, bugbread.

By: Gyan

Gyan — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 02:42:41 -0800

Discussion at Plastic about a study on implicit race discrimination.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 03:12:07 -0800

Rothko : "*sigh* Read the very first comment in this thread, bugbread." I read it. He is amazed at when people find racism when it isn't there (i.e. this particular case). You are amazed at people denying that racism is ever subtle but present (unclear what case you're referring to. This case isn't an example of people ever denying that racism can be subtle but present, and davidmsc's comment isn't denying that racism is ever subtle but present).

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 03:12:40 -0800

Er...I should probably add "*sigh*"

By: Rothko

Rothko — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 03:14:17 -0800

*double sigh*

By: shoos

shoos — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 03:23:24 -0800

*sigh* infinity

By: jfuller

jfuller — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 05:08:28 -0800

> It amazes me when people deny innate racism can be subtle, but is > present nonetheless. Heads in the sand, heads in the sand. Subtle, innate racism is of zero importance. It's one of those things you can't fix except by eliminating humans. Just take comfort in knowing that, somewhere, somebody is discriminating against the kind of people who are discriminating against you.

By: bugmuncher

bugmuncher — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 06:30:03 -0800

I want to believe the photographer, but either he's covering his ass (and lying) or he's a rotten writer. Surely he must have known what people would have thought if they read the line about "finding" food INSIDE a store. Not every photographer is a great writer, especially under deadline on the biggest story on the planet when they haven't eaten a meal for days. Were I the photographer, I'd have been a bit more explicit: I'd use words like "retrieve floating bread from the street" rather than "find". The biggest bullshit is that AFP has now pulled Graythen's photo due to the controversy. Way to kick your photog in the teeth, AFP. Either fire him or stand by him. Don't pull his photo but keep him around, because all you're going to do is piss him off to no end.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 07:40:08 -0800

It's funny, I assumed all the AFP photographers were French.

By: Vidiot

Vidiot — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 07:45:33 -0800

AFP? Joke. Has been for quite a while. They have the reputation of breaking lots of news first, faster than most other sources, but you have to take what they say with a BIG grain of salt. Being first a lot of the time means you're wrong a lot of the time, too. Reputable news organizations use AFP as a confirmation source but will not go to print/air just on their say-so.

By: soiled cowboy

soiled cowboy — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 07:48:09 -0800

There were about a hundred or so idiots in the previous thread who insisted on shouting "racism" even after it became clear that the captions were edited by different people. Where are those idiots now? Now is the time for those idiots to say they were, in fact, talking like idiots.

By: justgary

justgary — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 07:55:47 -0800

It amazes me when people find racism where none exists. Welcome to metafilter.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:12:08 -0800

AFP? Joke. Has been for quite a while. OTOH, these are photographs, so you can put a bit more faith in them.

By: chaschas

chaschas — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:10:25 -0800

Maybe someone has posted this already (had a look, couldn't find it). Sorry if someone finds it offensive. I know, and I think the author knows, that this is a serious issue.

By: photoslob

photoslob — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:14:54 -0800

AFP has pulled the photo from it's stream. I hope several of you sanctimonious a-holes are happy.

By: shoos

shoos — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:51:50 -0800

so who started this stupid meme? I just heard some fuckwit on that fundraising concert show bring it up. what a fucking sad parade of clowns