Blacks loot, non-blacks "find"...

[HayGan]

Frankly, I don't think you were there to see what the photographer saw before they took the frame. Frankly, I don't think you know that's taking place outside of the view of the camera. Frankly, I don't think you've worked in a deadline press operation. Frankly, I don't see any evidence to support your belief.

Armchair quarterbacks are the best

 

[Geoff_M]

Armchair quarterbacks are the best

...and unfortunately, this place has started to crawl with them!

Time for a long "DISbreak"...

 

[Rajah]

Those photos are amazing. I narrowed them down to just Chris' stuff -- he's got some very touching photos in there.

 

[Mickey's Monkey]

Frankly, I don't think you were there to see what the photographer saw before they took the frame. Frankly, I don't think you know what's taking place outside of the view of the camera. Frankly, I don't think you've worked in a deadline press operation. Frankly, I don't see any evidence to support your belief.

So, let's go with looting then.

 

[Mickey's Monkey]

Armchair quarterbacks are the best

Not second guessing. Just questioning why one editor sees one photo a looting and another editor sees a photo as finding.

 

[HayGan]

Not second guessing. Just questioning why one editor sees one photo a looting and another editor sees a photo as finding.

As was said previously, you don't know what the photgrapher witnessed before the photographs were taken. They know better than anyone how to caption the photo and what term best fits the image.

 

[poohandwendy]

poohandwendy,

Thanks... You know, this week I've come to the conclusion that the Internet the biggest collection of backseat drivers and conclusion jumpers I've ever witnessed.

So true...

 

[Geoff_M]

Not second guessing. Just questioning why one editor sees one photo a looting and another editor sees a photo as finding.

OK, I'm going to try this one more time....

There was no "editor" in the case of the AFP/Getty image. Chris Graythen, the photographer that witnessed the scene, wrote the caption himself. In the case of the AP photo, I haven't heard a firsthand report like Chris's, but the way the news photo business works is that the shooter writes the caption, or gives enough info to a local photo editor so they can write the caption. It isn't a photographic "ink blot" test. The editor doesn't see a uncaptioned image and then write one based on the first thing that comes into their minds. There's no "Oh, it's a black guy... so this must be a picture of looting!" Instead, IF an editior captioned the image, one of two things would have happened:
1) The CF card was handed to the editor from the photographer in a caption envelope (an envelope where the photog can write notes on the outside explaining the contents) and it reads "Looters outside the Walgreen's at the corner of X and Y."
2) The editor likes the image and asks the photographer nearby "What's going on here?" and the photographer replies "It's a guy carrying a garbage bag full of stuff he looted from the Walgreen's at the corner of X and Y."

Either way it's the PHOTOGRAPHER that provides the details about newspaper photo captions... it isn't EDITORS. And those details are based on what they saw themselves.

 

[Ted and Holly]

If the photographer came upon the couple in question when they were wading through the water and did not see them go into the store and take it, then can he legally call it looting?

I think under the circumstances, the photographer did pretty well.

Ted