Debunking the Idea That Race Attitudes Explain the Famous Katrina Captions Showing a White Person “Finding” Items and a Black Person “Looting” Them
Ken from Popehat, who has helped me greatly in my life and whom I respect deeply, recently posted the following tweet:
My son is studying Hurricane Katrina in social studies. I showed him this and asked him to explain the difference… pic.twitter.com/VX5TlKDP4N
— Popehat (@Popehat) November 25, 2013
Somewhere in the back of my head, I had a memory that this example of racism was not all it was cracked up to be. Turns out my memory was right: there is a race-neutral explanation for the differing captions. I don’t think I ever posted on this before, and since the perception obviously persists that the difference in the captions is due to attitudes on race, I thought I would do a post about it — even though it is eight years later.
It’s never too late to help debunk a persistent misperception.
Surprisingly, I found the source materials I needed at Snopes.com. Even more surprisingly, the debunking of this episode as racism comes in part from an article at Salon.com. (The other half of the debunking is from an online forum for sports photographers.)
Regarding the caption that accused someone of “looting,” we learn that the photographer saw the person take the goods from the shop:
Jack Stokes, AP’s director of media relations, confirmed today that 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.”
Regarding the photo by Chris Graythen whose caption said someone had “found” the items they were carrying, the photographer did not see the person take the goods from the shop. Here is the photographer, Chris Graythen, talking about his observations on a photographers’ forum:
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 [he means “taking photos of” — Ed.], 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.
According to the Salon article, the AP had a policy that action was described as looting only if a reporter or photographer saw people taking the goods from a business:
Santiago Lyon, AP’s director of photography, told Salon that all captions are vetted by editors and are the result of a dialogue between editor and photographer. Lyon said AP’s policy is that each photographer can describe only what he or she actually sees. He added, “When we see people go into businesses and come out with goods, we call it ‘looting.’” On the other hand, he said, “When we just see them carrying things down the road, we call it ‘carrying items.’”
And the AFP had the same policy:
Regarding the AFP/Getty “finding” photo by Graythen, Getty spokeswoman Bridget Russel said, “This is obviously a big tragedy down there, so we’re being careful with how we credit these photos.” Russel said that Graythen had discussed the image in question with his editor and that if Graythen didn’t witness the two people in the image in the act of looting, then he couldn’t say they were looting.
So there is really no reason to attribute racism to the people who took these pictures. They were following the similar policies of their news organizations, and observed different things.
Racism is a touchy issue in this country. It certainly exists — more than some people think, and less than other people think. Nothing about this debunking is intended to imply that racism is not a problem. It’s simply intended to show that there was a race-neutral explanation for the differences in these captions . . . and that people who use the captions as an example of racism (or race attitudes) may be unfairly attributing bad motives to photographers and caption writers who were just doing their job.
It’s a useful reminder in an era when any criticism of a black president is considered by some to be racism, no matter how much he lies or takes actions that harm the country.
Ding.
Patterico (9c670f) — 11/25/2013 @ 7:53 amVery enlightening. Thanks for the info.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/25/2013 @ 7:57 amI will visit your wonderful website often.
😉
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/25/2013 @ 7:58 amSeriously, it was a very helpful post, and credits to Salon and Snopes.
A good lesson for children, too.
It’s actually the same lesson with a twist. The bias you see may be your own.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 11/25/2013 @ 8:09 amAfter two years studying critical theory in grad school, all I can say is…I don’t know.
I think AP deliberately used the word looting to cause a sensation. The real question is, do media images cause discriminatory behavior? Again, I don’t know. I don’t think so, in modern times, but surely old time representations of black people probably did. But what are we to do?
Law & Order eventually devolved into a sustained, unfair attack on White Christian Males in an effort to be “fair” and it stunk. And these days, police and media steer clear of talking about the knockout game.
Patricia (be0117) — 11/25/2013 @ 8:25 amIf the folks were looting, and the photog saw it, why shouldn’t it be captioned thus? The truth is enough.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 11/25/2013 @ 8:28 amAnd if the merchandise was observed free-floating and found by waders, why shouldn’t it be captioned thus? Why isn’t the truth enough?
Why should one hide that truth? Who is noticing race? Cameras don’t notice. Cameras record pictures.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 11/25/2013 @ 8:31 amExcellent post.
My comment is brief, but I really don’t have a lot to say except that we should be intellectually honest in our short time on Earth since truth is worth something. Fear of being perceived as racist by people who, for reasons sincere or not, aren’t willing to attempt to be fair arbiters of fact nor reason is cowardice not virtue.
I especially like that the post left open the possibility that racial prejudice was at play. One suspects it wasn’t, but no need to say we know for certain. We don’t have crystal balls in to other people’s hearts. Kudos.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/25/2013 @ 8:39 amboth pictures are katrina porn
i’m so over stupid katrina I’m sorry you losers got so soggy but you got soggy cause you didn’t follow the advice in the films they showed you in school every year from first grade up until you dropped out
the not-stupid people who left didn’t have to munch on floater bread sammiches
where’s a picture of them ones?
happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/25/2013 @ 8:44 amIf your point is that looting is too strong a word for a young man dealing with emergency and going into a store to take things to provide for necessity, taking essential items that are otherwise unobtainable, maybe it’s a fair point.
If he was just taking advantage of chaos to grab things because no one is watching them, and they are “free,” that is decidedly a different moral choice on his part.
The captioners scrupled to make the distinction between items seen taken from shelves in a closed shop and items discovered drifting by. One can argue with that, I suppose, but I don’t see how race had anything to do with it, and any one making the assumption that the captioners saw the same situation and were more generous to the lady with the bread with their word choices because they are race-biased is race-biased themselves.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 11/25/2013 @ 8:46 amTHemselves = himself. There I go with that stupid gender-neutrality reflexive pronoun elision.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 11/25/2013 @ 8:49 amLiberals, in their never-ending quest for truth and objectivity (rolls eyes), need to imagine racism where it doesn’t exist so they can say “Look! I’m not a racist! I’m pointing out racism and criticizing it! I’m a good person!”
CrustyB (5a646c) — 11/25/2013 @ 8:51 amWell it also depends by what one means by racism.
If one means not hating or prejudging a person based on ancestry, absolutely. And not just as a moral virtue, but as a practical way to live life and have a more enjoyable and satisfying experience of a diverse culture and increasingly smaller world. But if one means by pretending that evolution and natural selection did not, at all, apply to our own species for some reason, then that’s silly, cowardly, or ignorant (in the lack of knowledge sense), not a virtue.
Further, differences between groups of people, and there are some, do not mean that a given group is better than others, certainly not across the board. It really depends on what aspect one is looking at.
I have part native ancestry. Is native’s tendency toward more obesity and type-2 diabetes (in the modern era; certainly not pre-colonization) a blessing? No, of course not. A fact? Probably. A sign of inferiority? Not at all. They simply ate a more natural diet until recently and had less time to adapt to a modern one. Knowing this sort of thing and not pretending it doesn’t exist can help one to make better choices or at least understand things.
Refusing to look at these and other things lessens one’s understanding of the world.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/25/2013 @ 9:29 amA useful comparison and example. Thanks for writing this, Patterico.
Beldar (8ff56a) — 11/25/2013 @ 9:42 amWhere are the cannibals?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/25/2013 @ 9:46 amIt certainly is an excellent point about how the captions were created. But reading it brings up editorial decision-making.
The photographer states that he saw and photographed both white and black people, both looting and finding items.
At some point, a decision was made to post a picture of a black looter and some white finders. Perhaps the decision was made entirely on photographic merit. An editor paging through the hundreds of photos finds two she likes and says ‘Ah! Now what are the details so I can caption them properly’ and it goes on from there.
Or…a less charitable consideration is that the photos were chosen for an editorial purpose.
Just saying that everything in this post could be 100% correct about the intentions of the photographer, and there could still be a racial (and racist) influence in there somewhere.
Pious Agnostic (c45233) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:02 amNope. Sorry. I don’t accept the explanation. Showing a black person committing a crime is racist. Period. Black people have long been oppressed, have suffered much, and are suffering much, under the Euro-centrist, slave-owner, white man. Anything that shows them as other than clean and eloquent without a trace of Negro dialect is racist. Racist!
Moreover, the young black man was not looting. He was the lawful discoverer of abandoned, lost, or mislaid property. In his hour of need, in the horrible stress caused by George W. Bush who brought Katrina to New Orleans, in the horrible existential angst which afflicts every African-American from centuries of dehumanizing oppression, he borrowed it by accident. To keep it safe for its rightful owner when he came to claim it.
neremiah kright (dbc370) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:04 amneremiah kright – You are a very wise commenter. Please visit often.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:16 amAnother day, another ODS rant.
Your not racist for holding the (as we’ve seen, wildly misguided and hyper-inflammatory) hateful views that you do of Obama.
You’re racist when your words or actions imply that the color of his skin, or anyone else’s, has anything at all to do with it.
Defeating a straw man does not change that.
Caligularity (41f27e) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:19 amThey were published by different organizations.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:20 amAs I often say, there is no such thing as “racism.” It’s either true or it isn’t true.
CrustyB (5a646c) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:20 amneremiah kright – You are a very wise commenter. Please visit often.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:16 am
Why, thank you, daleyrocks. That’s the second nicest thing you’ve ever said to me.
nk (dbc370) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:23 amFC, frankly I’m not certain whether this changes my argument or not. My editor was entirely fictional, after all, so if it were two editors it may be the same.
I’ll have to consider.
Pious Agnostic (c45233) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:24 amHe’s a liar who hurt a lot of people, will continue to hurting them in the future, and will even kill some of them and leave others in disability and so on.
It would be different if the inevitable consequences of changing a large system came about honestly, but with the incredible cynical lying both years ago and recently about it, from Obama, it is harder to take that without feeling anger about it.
It is not my only reason for disliking Obama — nor do I dislike everything about him — but it is a damn good one.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:25 am“Another day, another ODS rant.”
Caligularity – Obama is not the subject of the thread, dolt.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:25 amCaligularity, the only one talking about Obama here is you. Why do you see a discussion of looters and immediately think our president?
Perhaps you are a closet Randian after all?
Pious Agnostic (c45233) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:26 amMy eleven-year old learned what the “race card” is from 30 Rock of all places. Black guy, total jerk, claiming people didn’t like him because he was black. She explained it to me. I was so proud.
nk (dbc370) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:28 am25, 26
Read Patsy’s last line in the rant, idiots.
You need to get your hearing checked…not hearing the dog whistle anymore I see.
Caligularity (013d7a) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:49 amI never did hear any dog whistles, you jerk. Only dogs hear them.
Pious Agnostic (c45233) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:56 amStraw man in same sentence btw:
“…in an era where any criticism of a black president is considered by some to be racism…”
What idiocy. There will always be “some” people who level unsubstantiated politically motivated charges regardless of the situation (we call them “Conservative Repugs” or Teabaggers).
Is it really a point worth making?
Only if you’re a white republican laying cover for the racists who populate your side of the spectrum.
I see that a lot here…hmm.
Caligularity (66371e) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:56 amBuh-bye Tye
JD (06dacf) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:58 amSo, the topic of Patterico’s post is Obama, is that your contention Caligularity?
Pious Agnostic (c45233) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:59 amCaligularity,
What is it you hope to achieve with your comments? I’m always curious about that and what motivates one that is obviously very emotionally invested in the subject.
Dana (e9ede2) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:59 amCaligirregularity,
Why are you left wingers so obsessed with skin color and money ?
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/25/2013 @ 11:01 amLet’s try to move toward a society where the content of a person’s character & behavior is judged rather than by their skin color and their income level.
Why can’t the left post comments that challenge and inspire and under their own name?
Oh.
Tye again
Dana (e9ede2) — 11/25/2013 @ 11:05 amI see at Althouse that even Bob Dylan is a racist and being sued by the Croats in France for inciting hatred toward Croats in an interview,
Black people can sense Klan blood, Jews can sense Nazi blood and Serbs can sense Croat blood.
Sigh.
Dana (e9ede2) — 11/25/2013 @ 11:14 amThis is silly.
Was there a grocery clerk floating around on an inner-tube and collecting cash? The white folks paid him and the black kid punched him out? No? Then what’s the difference?
The photographer says, regarding the White Bread, that “it would have floated away anyway” – like that is a meaningful distinction. Was either grocery going to restock and resell the groceries that were taken, after the flood subsided? No? Then what’s the difference? Where the food was floating? They didn’t bake it themselves, and they didn’t pay for it either.
There is no difference. Some people got blamed for trying to survive, and some didn’t. There may have been a racial slant to that in some instances – as these photos indicate. I don’t see the point in avoiding the obvious.
Leviticus (93bbad) — 11/25/2013 @ 12:37 pmIn New Mexico, it’s illegal for an unshaven woman to walk down Main St. with a loaf of bread carried under either arm.
Colonel Haiku (ee85e3) — 11/25/2013 @ 12:45 pmShorter Haiku: Let them eat bread – if they’re white.
Leviticus (93bbad) — 11/25/2013 @ 12:48 pmPoint is, the food couldn’t be sold and a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do to in dire circumstances/that situation.
Colonel Haiku (0f1c4b) — 11/25/2013 @ 12:54 pmYa gots me all wrong, Sparky.
Colonel Haiku (0f1c4b) — 11/25/2013 @ 12:55 pmColonel, I hear there’s a lot of illegality in Nueva Mexico. That’s probably why they need so many lawyers.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/25/2013 @ 12:59 pmThe folks I had the problem with were the ones looting sneakers and other such necessary items.
Gazzer (e6ddf8) — 11/25/2013 @ 1:00 pmThe problem was that, in both cases, the caption says the goods came from a grocery store, and in neither case do you see anyone in the picture taking anything out. The captions were too short to explain the difference. (in one case people were actually going into the store, and in the other case, the water was washing the goods out – and it no longer had a door.
Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/25/2013 @ 1:08 pmComment by Leviticus (93bbad) — 11/25/2013 @ 12:37 pm
what’s the difference?
The photographer says, regarding the White Bread, that “it would have floated away anyway” – like that is a meaningful distinction. Was either grocery going to restock and resell the groceries that were taken, after the flood subsided? No? Then what’s the difference? Where the food was floating? They didn’t bake it themselves, and they didn’t pay for it either.
There is no difference.
In one case there was hope that if other people did nothing the goods would remain in the store – (although maybe nothing wold have been done with that except donate it at most)
In the other case, unless steps were taken to return and protect the food, they were lost to the store anyway, so it was either take the pretty pointless step of attempting to return the goods and put it ina safe place in the store if you find it, do nothing, or take it yourself.
This is the trolley problem, applied to theft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
The people taking goods which located out already anyway, and would float away further if not tajken (to be used by some other non-original owner maybe) is similar to diverting teh trolley in to different tracks.
Going into the store is more like pushing the fat man to his death.
Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/25/2013 @ 1:18 pmWell said, albeit I don’t really think there was a material difference in what these folks did. A lot of people died out there, and I don’t begrudge someone their trying to obtain food and survive.
Dustin (303dca) — 11/25/2013 @ 1:33 pmRe: #42… it’s the Heisenberg Effect, Stones…
Colonel Haiku (c27e3f) — 11/25/2013 @ 1:45 pmThere is a fundamental difference between finding a loaf of bread in the street, and stealing a loaf of bread from a shelf, Leviticus.
JD (06dacf) — 11/25/2013 @ 1:57 pmThere’s also such a thing as abandoned property – this bread we’re speaking of is likely a good example.
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 11/25/2013 @ 2:18 pmThat’s true, but there’s also a difference between stealing out of greed and stealing so you can eat amidst a disaster that killed a lot of people.
Dustin (303dca) — 11/25/2013 @ 2:20 pmDustin – I am well aware of that, it just seemed like Leviticus was trying to gloss over the basic differences.
JD (06dacf) — 11/25/2013 @ 2:36 pmDustin,
The interesting question, to my mind, is whether what we’re talking about was stealing at all. Were the groceries on shelves ever going to be sold to anyone? Residents weren’t allowed to return to the city for three weeks. What would even be left?
TVs and stuff might have survived, and been reclaimed. But groceries? Nah. And plenty of other stuff fits the latter category as well.
Leviticus (93bbad) — 11/25/2013 @ 3:38 pmI think the owners of the goods should get to make that determination, not the person taking the goods.
JD (06dacf) — 11/25/2013 @ 3:46 pm‘property is theft,’ or something, JD, now of course I reckon the malfeasance of Blanco will not go remarked in that class, doubleunplusgood you know,
narciso (3fec35) — 11/25/2013 @ 3:51 pmPeople did make that determination. They legally abandoned a lot of property.
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 11/25/2013 @ 4:05 pmGet real. Not about food sitting on a shelf during an epic, extended natural disaster where the media is going on about cannibalism.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/25/2013 @ 4:08 pmIt should go without saying, but doesn’t, that if you had to take someone’s property to survive during a crisis that when the crisis is over, you should pay for what you took.
That is where I would draw the line between moral and immoral ‘looting’.
Dustin (303dca) — 11/25/2013 @ 5:48 pmInteresting that their lesson is not about the ethics of such an act, by either white or black, but about perceptions of such an event,
narciso (3fec35) — 11/25/2013 @ 5:51 pmThe fact he was looting was a FACT. You somehow manage to make it about some theme in your typical imaginative liberal way.
Gerald A (66407e) — 11/25/2013 @ 6:38 pmIf you find a loaf of bread on a store shelf, you can
Elephant Stone (108847) — 11/25/2013 @ 6:39 pmkeeptake it.Leviticus,
Could you tell me more about the store that abandoned the property?
Patterico (11a10f) — 11/25/2013 @ 6:44 pmOur friend Leviticus has uncovered a vast conspiracy by liberal journalists to make black Americans look bad. This is most evident in the way they
Elephant Stone (108847) — 11/25/2013 @ 6:46 pmshill forcover Barack Obama, as well as this current epidemictotally ignored by the mediacalled ‘the knockout game.’Our friend Leviticus has uncovered a vast conspiracy by liberal journalists to make black Americans look bad
One can tell Leviticus’s kumbaya egalitarianism, moral-equivalency ethos and political-correctness compulsions are grinding away at his heart. But such emotions — where common sense takes a back seat — at least are rather harmless and excusable in this case. They sure as hell are not when it comes to instances involving characters like Nidal Hasan and the US military.
Mark (58ea35) — 11/25/2013 @ 7:08 pmLeviticus – as far as I know, flotsam is considered to be fair game … stock on a shelf (unless said shelf is also floating), not so much …
Caligularity – most of us in here ignore Pres’ent Obama’s black half as being irrelevant we don’t know if that half is descended from Africans who themselves owned and sold slaves or not) … we concentrate on his white descendant-of-slave-owners half which is implementing policies destructive to the health and welfare of the US and its citizenry – and the lying that that half of him does in pursuit of said harm … had it been a President Romney doing what Pres’ent Obama is doing, we would be at least as irate about his mendacity …
Keep projecting, both of you … in that, you are consistent …
Alastor (e7cb73) — 11/25/2013 @ 7:17 pmProperty is generally deemed to have been abandoned if it is found in a place where the true owner likely intended to leave it, but is in such a condition that it is apparent that he or she has no intention of returning to claim it. Abandoned property generally becomes the property of whoever should find it and take possession of it first, …. Now IANAL but there is no rational manner that the subject property calls in that category. How can you suggest that the owner of the store would not be coming back to claim their property? Between FEMA and insurance, they still have a material interest in their property.
JD (5c1832) — 11/25/2013 @ 7:18 pm(+()
(sigh)
We hatesss it when we forgetssss to balanssse our parenthesssesss, we doesss, precioussss !
Alastor (e7cb73) — 11/25/2013 @ 7:18 pmI taught my daughter not to pick up coins from the sidewalk. When she was around five. They weren’t hers. That simple. “Keep your hands off what doesn’t belong to you” is understood by children. Adults find nuances.
If my property is water damaged, it’s still my property. If I don’t want it anymore, I’ll let you know when I put it in, or by, the trashcans in the alley or by the curb. Otherwise, KYFHO!
nk (dbc370) — 11/25/2013 @ 7:31 pmStuff floating around is salvage. Stuff sitting in the store is store property.
Rob Crawford (45d991) — 11/25/2013 @ 7:40 pmNo, you are silly. Goods that have floated out of a flooded store, and are now floating on the water in a public street, are no longer the store’s property. They are flotsam and jetsam. Salvage. Goods that are still in the store, are still the owner’s property, and if they were not stolen the owner would have recovered them, perhaps still in salable condition.
Milhouse (b95258) — 11/25/2013 @ 7:42 pmBe proud of the world you made. http://www.fugly.com/pictures/14463/chained_up_walker.html
I know, some other poor person is struggling to survive and needs that walker more than the owner does. Besides, racist!
nk (dbc370) — 11/25/2013 @ 7:43 pmYes, there is such a thing. What makes you think the owner of the looted store had abandoned his property?
Milhouse (b95258) — 11/25/2013 @ 7:45 pmTerrible.
I read a story a year or two ago about someone stealing walkers to sell for scrap metal. Surely he was only getting a tiny amount of money compared with the misery he was causing.
I don’t think the world is necessarily getting worse. When I worked in Washington DC for a short time, my dad, who immigrated from Iran to the USA in 1967, expressed his concern. When he first arrived, he was in DC at a fast food restaurant that was robbed, and this gave him a lasting impression of that city. I can only imagine this young man, far from his family, speaking almost no English, exposed to a bunch of thugs with guns just a few days into his trip. He ultimately stayed here because Iran got worse.
When I was in DC I found a few rougher areas, but it wasn’t nearly as bad (perhaps because DC is so wealthy now, thanks to our overfunded government).
My point is that it isn’t a recent thing or a world we’ve made that has these bad people who would take everything you have for the slightest gain. That’s just part of the human race, and really understanding that has been a difficult lesson for me, thanks to growing up in a nice neighborhood in Texas.
Dustin (bf7d37) — 11/25/2013 @ 9:01 pmI think nk and Dustin put it best: (i) don’t take things that aren’t your own, and (ii) if you take something someone else bought or produced, you pay for it. Disaster or not.
Oh, you’ll hear static like “It was going to go bad,” but that is an excuse. Pay for what you take.
Our problem is too much “free” stuff has leaked into our collective consciousness. Except free stuff is not actually free, as folks are beginning to learn.
It all comes down to TANSTAAFL.
Simon Jester (2fe4cd) — 11/25/2013 @ 9:19 pmThere is a tale to tell about the United States in recent history. Look to New York City and weep about what is about to happen there.
Then look to my home state of Texas. Hateful tragedies in abundance, then prosperity for most, if not all.
There is a moral. It only takes a handful of old scolds and incipient busybodies to ruin lives no matter their intentions.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 11/25/2013 @ 9:26 pmI appreciate your thoughtful treatment, Patrick, but I don’t buy it.
First, I think the different stories by the two different photogs — taken at face value — demonstrate how value judgments come into play in the news, which was part of my point. The proposed distinction — that it’s looting when you go into a flooded store, but not when you take the goods floating away from the store — isn’t convincing to me. It’s reasonable to ask whether the resulting characterizations are informed by attitudes towards the looters/finders/foragers.
Second, as others have said, part of this is about editorial judgment, not just the photographer’s judgment. Editorial judgment played a role in captioning the two pictures differently. Once again, it’s reasonable to ask what factors played a role.
Third, the discrepancy exists in the context of broader media coverage of Katrina. Take a look at, for example, the use of the term “refugee” to apply to people (mostly black) fleeing Katrina, as opposed to the term “evacuee” used with respect to other domestic disasters.
Much of your blog is about media bias. You examine what you perceive as a liberal bias in the media, and more specifically a bias against conservatives and conservative ideas. That is a good thing. Consider this: if I showed you two pictures of protests conducted under very similar circumstances the same week, and the one of a tea party group was captioned “angry mob” and the one of, say, a pro-gun-control group was captioned “protesters,” how much deference would you be inclined to give the photographers’ rationales?
Ken (2e87a6) — 11/26/2013 @ 7:11 amI think the question of whether the distinction is convincing, to you or anyone else, is separate from the question whether it is race-neutral, and was the actual explanation for the difference in the captions.
Patterico (9c670f) — 11/26/2013 @ 7:22 amNone, but you haven’t presented me with any principled non-political distinction between the two protests.
Let me tweak your example to make it more on point. If, say, the photographer who captioned the pro-gun-control group photo said the protestors were peaceful and their slogans political, and the photographer who captioned the tea party group had personally observed several acts of violence and people chanting violent rhetoric (a counterfactual hypothetical, I submit), how much deference would you give to people arguing that the only difference between the two protests was the politics of the groups?
Now, you could, in turn, tweak my hypo to show an actual difference between the two hypotheticals that is less stark, I suppose, given that you (and some other people) find little actual distinction between the two Katrina situations. I nevertheless believe that there was a race-neutral explanation here: that under the same set of guidelines, one was legitimately seen as “looting” (taking directly from a store) and one was legimitately seen as “finding” (taking items from the surface of water near a store as the items floated away).
Whether either action was morally reprehensible or entirely understandable is not really the issue. The issue is: was the difference in the captions based on preconceptions about race? And I submit that there is no evidence for that conclusion — and that to advance that race underlay the editorial decisions is to attack the editors and photographers unfairly.
Imagine yourself as a defense attorney for these editors and photographers — perhaps when they are charged with Felony Thoughtcrimes under some Democratic administration — and the thought process I am advocating might come more easily.
Patterico (9c670f) — 11/26/2013 @ 7:27 amIn other words, Patterico is considering the photographer innocent until proven racist. If there is an alternate explanation, you take that, even if you can’t be sure that the person is not racist. The popular standard is to consider everyone racist until proven innocent. The photographers and caption writers must somehow prove themselves free of all racism, which borders on the impossible.
Ken, do you have any reason to believe the photographers are lying? Do you have evidence of their racist character, or testimony from the people in the picture? When people mention the liberal media bias, they usually present evidence that the media interpretation is wrong, or that this is not the first time the individual in question has been biased.
OmegaPaladin (f4a293) — 11/26/2013 @ 8:19 amLeftists are so very used to employing language to “steal” opinion – they can’t imagine that there is a world where language is used in any sort of honest and neutral way, in journalism or anywhere else.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 11/26/2013 @ 8:27 amIn fact I think they would declare such a thing to be impossible.
The truth should be enough. There may be excuses and necessary conditions, even, but there is a distinction with an actual difference between breaking into a business and absconding with items on the shelves, and gathering detritus floating in water or found in a ditch.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 11/26/2013 @ 8:30 amKen White is a person many think highly of and I I think highly of. He’s brilliant, funny, does good in the world and makes me consider how to be better and to do better. He is human, however and here he erred.
Ken didn’t know the captioning rules. All he saw was two sorts of people he believes society divides and distinguishes unfairly on a regular basis, wading in the water with sundries bobbing in tow. One was described as a thief, the other a scavenger. The only thing apparently distinguishing their situations was this unfair distinction of race.
He assumed the worst. Which was wrong…he didn’t have any facts or information to conclude that race was *all* that distinguished the two pictures. His own bias informed him. One of those pictures was not like the others, so far as he could see, and the difference was race.
He didn’t see much need to look past appearances, and that was the error.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 11/26/2013 @ 8:41 amtwo four six eight when big storm comes evacuate!
that is a helpful mnemonic I use to help remember not to stay in the path of a huge ginormous hurricane – especially when i live below sea level!
it’s been good advice for me my whole life and I think it will help you too but remember – you have to practice your mnemonic until you internalize it to where you truly understand it – keep practicing until when a hugely destructive dangerous and lethal force of nature comes your way, your first instinct will be to get out of its path as opposed to sheltering in place like a slackjawed momo child
if I can prevent even one person from having to loot grocery stores for nourishment while dogpaddling about in feceswater it’s worth it I think
but it’s not just me let’s thank our underwriters
this psa is brought to you by the letter D for drenched dogpaddling dumbass!
you’re welcome
happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/26/2013 @ 8:45 am82. Or Darwin shall not be mocked.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/26/2013 @ 8:52 amThere is a clear distinction between those who participated in the evacuation before the storm, and those who didn’t, and then fled seeking refuge after the storm. Both sets of people can be called refugees, but only the first set can be called evacuees.
Milhouse (b95258) — 11/26/2013 @ 10:18 amBravo, SarahW, on several levels. So well said, and not at all snarkish. Good post.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 11/26/2013 @ 10:33 amSimon,
Don’t hate the snark !
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/26/2013 @ 1:23 pmSarahW,
I feel that Ken has a blind spot here. But then, he probably feels the same about me. On a purely logical level, I don’t think his analogies here or on Twitter make sense.
Patterico (9c670f) — 11/26/2013 @ 5:27 pmLet’s assume Ken is right that racism is at the heart of this comparison. If so, it’s racism by the media — that is, racism by every journalist and editor who participated in making and justifying these decisions. Remember that the next time they assure us the Tea Party are the real racists.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/26/2013 @ 5:42 pmRemember something based on a probably untrue hypothetical?
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/26/2013 @ 5:47 pmI took a time out and asked myself, “What would I have thought if the pictures had not been captioned at all?”
Well, I’ve spent some little time in New Orleans. I would have thought that in both cases they were fleeing the Garden District. The kid a student at Tulane, the hippies on the staff or faculty. That they were carrying stuff from their homes. The hippies would have backpacks, naturally. And there was no room for the bread so the lady was carrying it. I’d expect a college student to use a garbage bag for a suitcase. And to value his twelve-pack.
There is an elephant in the room that nobody wants to discuss. It was a safe bet, without knowing the background, that the captions were correct. Not because of stereotypes. Because of statistics. Anybody’s statistics, even those of that racist Eric Holder’s Justice Department. It was more likely correct that the black kid was a looter and that the hippies were scavengers.
But then there is truth and there is political truth. Political truth demands that we must not see race. Not ever, ever, ever.
I’ll give you some more safe bets:
If there is a homicide in Chicago tonight, no other information available:
1) There is a better than 85% chance that it is a young black or “Hispanic” male;
2) There is a roughly 5% chance that his killer is a Chicago cop;
3) There is a 50% chance that his killer will never be identified;
4) There is a beter than 90% chance that if the killer is identified, and it is not a Chicago cop, it is a young black or “Hispanic” male.
Call me racist. (Not you, Christoph, you already have.)
nk (dbc370) — 11/26/2013 @ 6:18 pm