Would the Govt response be different in NO.......

[T'sNana]

Yeah, except for the bit where people are being so inhumane that you can't mix the races right now. That is just makes me furious! :furious:

I agree. IMO, I don't think the Al Sharpton's (sp?) of the world are helping either! It's not about race...it's about VICTIMS of this HURRICANE! I have seen white, Vietnamese, black, tourists of many nationalities, etc.

 

[Magnum PI]

Yeah, except for the bit where people are being so inhumane that you can't mix the races right now. That is just makes me furious! :furious:

Mee too...but if I asked you to join me for a nightime walk in, say, Houston's 5th ward, or a few dozen other places I could name....would you say SURE!!! sounds like fun! Race isn't an easy thing to speak of, or may I say, it's an easy thing to speak of, but a hard thing to bring under control at will. The races do, and must mix, but when things explode at times, do you think anyone can raise their magic wand and make it OK? Jessie Jackson said on TV recently how he was scared one night in D.C. when several black guys seemed to be following him, and he pointedly said BLACK guys. Surely you can understand that. It ain't right, but please don't say it's not there...mpi

 

[Details]

Mee too...but if I asked you to join me for a nightime walk in, say, Houston's 5th ward, or a few dozen other places I could name....would you say SURE!!! sounds like fun! Race isn't an easy thing to speak of, or may I say, it's an easy thing to speak of, but a hard thing to bring under control at will. The races do, and must mix, but when things explode at times, do you think anyone can raise their magic wand and make it OK? Jessie Jackson said on TV recently how he was scared one night in D.C. when several black guys seemed to be following him, and he pointedly said BLACK guys. Surely you can understand that. It ain't right, but please don't say it's not there...mpi

Yes and no... I don't personally think it's so much about race as class - most people aren't too worried about being followed by a black guy in a nice suit; most people are worried about being followed by a white guy in gang attire. You get a high-crime area, and anyone would be worried about walking through there. The fact that poverty and violent crime go together, and that often race and income go together make for some racially biased statistics and facts that do mean people will be more worried with a black man than a white man, all things being equal; but what makes a neighborhood unsafe to walk through at night unless you look like you fit there is usually crime, not race.

 

[Dara]

Did anyone hear this:

A top New Orleans police officer said Saturday that National Guard troops sat around playing cards while people died in the stricken city after Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans deputy police commander W.S. Riley launched a bitter attack on the federal response to the disaster though he praised the way the evacuation was eventually handled.

 

[Magnum PI]

Yes and no... I don't personally think it's so much about race as class - most people aren't too worried about being followed by a black guy in a nice suit; most people are worried about being followed by a white guy in gang attire. You get a high-crime area, and anyone would be worried about walking through there. The fact that poverty and violent crime go together, and that often race and income go together make for some racially biased statistics and facts that do mean people will be more worried with a black man than a white man, all things being equal; but what makes a neighborhood unsafe to walk through at night unless you look like you fit there is usually crime, not race.

Uh..yeah..kinda..When I lived in NYC, I walked home through areas that I wouldn't tell others to tread (unless they were cool). I was comfortable doing so..I'm gonna read your post again tomorrow when I get up...mpi

 

[SewingDeb]

I agree. The caption for the second picture has definitely been altered. Someone is trying to stir up trouble.

I think the caption for the first picture has been altered, too, because I saw that picture on the Fox News Gallery and that is not the wording in the caption. The word loot or looting is not in there at all.

 

[CyberLaw]

Apparently I read an article today. News agencies do not change the caption of any photo.

If a photographer uses the word "loot" it is because he saw the person loot. He was an actual witness.......

If he sees a person walking down the street, but did not see them "loot" they may use the word "found" or "carrying" because you did not see the person loot the things they are carrying.

That is why there is a difference in captions, it was not a racial angle.

 

[Beyond Belief]

I blew those pictures up and looked very closely at them. It might be a good idea for everyone to do that. i know what i saw. But you need to see it for yourself. i satisfied my curiosity, everyone should do the same.

 

[fran]

FWIW, and I have no links..............

I heard that in regard to the tourists being taken to the front of the line....originally the hotel the tourists were housed in had paid for buses to go to NO and remove their guests. However, when the buses arrived in NO, they were told by whoever was in charge, to go to the superdome and remove evacuees from there. Thus, in the final days of the evacuation, the Mayor ordered the tourists to go to the superdome and they were put to the front of the line.........I personally don't see anything wrong with this. We must realize these people were in just as bad of shape as those in the superdome. They had gone days without food and water, they were hiding to save their lives, they didn't know what was going on and where to go to get help.

As for the length of time it took the Federal government to respond..........I'm not making excuses because I don't understand why it has to take so long when there is such an immediate need for assistance except for the bureaucracy involved,.........but, the state and local governments were told, and have always been told, that during a disaster, they must be responsible for their citizens for the first 72 hours, as it takes that long for the federal government to respond. Therefore, it seems that the mayor of NO and the Governor of LA must take responsibility for their inactions in the beginning. They should have had better disaster plans in place.

Having said this, I've seen every single person who's spoken on tv who has actually observed this disaster first hand, say things like,'I've never seen anything like it,' and 'This is a disaster of Biblical poportion,' and 'In all my years of reporting the news, I've never seen such widespread distruction,' and even battle-seasoned military personnel say things to the effect, 'Even in battle, I've never seen such total distruction.' ............you see, no one was prepared for such total and unspeakable loss. Also, remember, it isn't just NO that was effected by this storm, there's Mississippi and Alabama as well. This event is HUGE and unprecedented in our history.

I also believe that they weren't prepared for the large number of people who didn't or couldn't get out. They thought they had 25,000 at most, yet I heard yesterday they had transported by bus and air over 42,000. So many of them were sick. Even the great state of Texas thought 400 buses would be able to evacuate eveyone, yet it was a drop in the bucket the first day they were able to transport.

Of course, then there's the unsavory element that no one foresaw. Who would ever dream that a small portion of these victims would prey on the weaker, the women, the children. Then they began attacking the rescuers, hampering relief efforts.

Now is not the time to point fingers. Now is the time to help those in need. After those in need are taken care of, then we can find what went wrong and make sure this never, never happens again, from local, state, and federal government.

JMHO
fran

 

[CyberLaw]

Beyond Belief:

From the Toronto Star.......

Two photographs of New Orleans residents wading through chest-deep water unleashed a wave of chatter among bloggers last week about whether black people are being treated unfairly in media coverage of post-hurricane looting.


One of the images, shot by photographer Dave Martin for the Associated Press, shows a young black man wading through chest-deep waters after "looting" a grocery store, according to the caption. The young man appears to have a case of Pepsi under one arm and a full garbage bag in tow.


In the other, similar shot, taken by photographer Chris Graythen for AFP/Getty Images, a white man and a light-skinned woman are shown wading through chest-deep water after "finding" goods, including bread and soda, according to the caption, in a local grocery store.


The images were both published on Tuesday by Yahoo News. "We don't edit photo captions," Yahoo P.R. manager Brian Nelson told Salon. "Sometimes we take a look at the photos and we'll choose to pull photos, but the captions run as is."


A search of AP and Getty's image databases confirms that Yahoo News did not alter either of the photo captions before posting them online.


Looting has become a serious problem, and conditions in the area continue to be extremely challenging. Bloggers were quick to raise allegations of insensitivity and racism regarding the disparity in the two captions — but did they pass judgment too quickly? Not only did the photos come from separate outlets, bloggers had no knowledge of the circumstances in which the shots were taken, beyond what appeared in the captions.


On Wednesday, D.C. Web gossip Wonkette suggested AP should apologize, while a blogger at Daily Kos commented alongside the juxtaposed images, "And don't forget. It's not looting if you're white."


"I am curious how one photographer knew the food was looted by one but not the other," wrote Boston Globe correspondent Christina Pazzanese, in a letter posted on media commentator Jim Romenesko's blog. "Were interviews conducted as they swam by? Should editors, in a rush to publish poignant or startling images, relax their standards or allow personal or regional biases creep into captions and stories?"


The AP database includes two other images from the same scene by photographer Dave Martin that refer to looters in the captions, though neither actually shows an explicit act of looting. Jack Stokes, AP's director of media relations, confirmed 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."


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.'"

If a person does not know the circumstances of a photo taken, how can one then "comment" on the photo out of context.

The photographer is the one witnessing the "condition" in which the photo was taken because he/she is actually there at the scene.

 

[Beyond Belief]

I just saw a clip from MEET THE PRESS. Gentlemen from La. extremely distraught because someone, I think his family wasn't rescued. What I didn't understand was what he said at the end. I thought he said "send us some money", but i don't get that, if thats what he said. is lack of money standing in the way of their rescues? I apologize if this has been addressed elsewhere, I understand his anguish, but I didnt' understand what he said he wanted us to send.

 

[Beyond Belief]

Beyond Belief:

From the Toronto Star.......

Two photographs of New Orleans residents wading through chest-deep water unleashed a wave of chatter among bloggers last week about whether black people are being treated unfairly in media coverage of post-hurricane looting.


One of the images, shot by photographer Dave Martin for the Associated Press, shows a young black man wading through chest-deep waters after "looting" a grocery store, according to the caption. The young man appears to have a case of Pepsi under one arm and a full garbage bag in tow.


In the other, similar shot, taken by photographer Chris Graythen for AFP/Getty Images, a white man and a light-skinned woman are shown wading through chest-deep water after "finding" goods, including bread and soda, according to the caption, in a local grocery store.


The images were both published on Tuesday by Yahoo News. "We don't edit photo captions," Yahoo P.R. manager Brian Nelson told Salon. "Sometimes we take a look at the photos and we'll choose to pull photos, but the captions run as is."


A search of AP and Getty's image databases confirms that Yahoo News did not alter either of the photo captions before posting them online.


Looting has become a serious problem, and conditions in the area continue to be extremely challenging. Bloggers were quick to raise allegations of insensitivity and racism regarding the disparity in the two captions — but did they pass judgment too quickly? Not only did the photos come from separate outlets, bloggers had no knowledge of the circumstances in which the shots were taken, beyond what appeared in the captions.


On Wednesday, D.C. Web gossip Wonkette suggested AP should apologize, while a blogger at Daily Kos commented alongside the juxtaposed images, "And don't forget. It's not looting if you're white."


"I am curious how one photographer knew the food was looted by one but not the other," wrote Boston Globe correspondent Christina Pazzanese, in a letter posted on media commentator Jim Romenesko's blog. "Were interviews conducted as they swam by? Should editors, in a rush to publish poignant or startling images, relax their standards or allow personal or regional biases creep into captions and stories?"


The AP database includes two other images from the same scene by photographer Dave Martin that refer to looters in the captions, though neither actually shows an explicit act of looting. Jack Stokes, AP's director of media relations, confirmed 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."


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.'"

If a person does not know the circumstances of a photo taken, how can one then "comment" on the photo out of context.

The photographer is the one witnessing the "condition" in which the photo was taken because he/she is actually there at the scene.

I didn't think anything was altered.

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

As for the length of time it took the Federal government to respond..........I'm not making excuses because I don't understand why it has to take so long when there is such an immediate need for assistance except for the bureaucracy involved,.........but, the state and local governments were told, and have always been told, that during a disaster, they must be responsible for their citizens for the first 72 hours, as it takes that long for the federal government to respond. Therefore, it seems that the mayor of NO and the Governor of LA must take responsibility for their inactions in the beginning. They should have had better disaster plans in place.
Having said this, I've seen every single person who's spoken on tv who has actually observed this disaster first hand, say things like,'I've never seen anything like it,' and 'This is a disaster of Biblical poportion,' and 'In all my years of reporting the news, I've never seen such widespread distruction,' and even battle-seasoned military personnel say things to the effect, 'Even in battle, I've never seen such total distruction.' ............you see, no one was prepared for such total and unspeakable loss. Also, remember, it isn't just NO that was effected by this storm, there's Mississippi and Alabama as well. This event is HUGE and unprecedented in our history.

I also believe that they weren't prepared for the large number of people who didn't or couldn't get out. They thought they had 25,000 at most, yet I heard yesterday they had transported by bus and air over 42,000. So many of them were sick. Even the great state of Texas thought 400 buses would be able to evacuate eveyone, yet it was a drop in the bucket the first day they were able to transport.

Of course, then there's the unsavory element that no one foresaw. Who would ever dream that a small portion of these victims would prey on the weaker, the women, the children. Then they began attacking the rescuers, hampering relief efforts.

Now is not the time to point fingers. Now is the time to help those in need. After those in need are taken care of, then we can find what went wrong and make sure this never, never happens again, from local, state, and federal government.

JMHO
fran

(Snipped some for space)
Fran, your post sums up a lot of my feelings as well. And I had not heard until this morning, about the part that the State/Local gov't having been told about the 72 hrs of self-sustainment. That actually makes good sense, and is a good PLAN - but it was not implemented well, to say the least. I read somewhere about the plan of using buses, etc for evacuations but that the buses just sat there during this, and now are flooded and of no use. That just makes me ill. That's not the federal gov't fault, that is directly a part of the local/state gov't. Having a plan on paper and then not following it -well, the plan was useless.

And I have the same feeling as you, let's hope most of the energy is spent on helping those in need. We can do a whole lot more armchair quarterbacking in the months/years to come. There will be obviously lots to talk about.

 

[Hammerized]

I didn't think anything was altered.

Here is the photographer's explanation, in part:

Please stop emailing me on this one.

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, 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.

Please, please don't argue symantics over this one.

Full post at this link:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=17204
It's the 26th post down.

 

[SewingDeb]

Apparently I read an article today. News agencies do not change the caption of any photo.

If a photographer uses the word "loot" it is because he saw the person loot. He was an actual witness.......

If he sees a person walking down the street, but did not see them "loot" they may use the word "found" or "carrying" because you did not see the person loot the things they are carrying.

That is why there is a difference in captions, it was not a racial angle.

Here's the caption from the first picture from CNN:

A young man drags groceries through chest-deep water in New Orleans on Tuesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/04/katrina.impact/index.html
Click on • Gallery: After Katrina on that page.

 

[CyberLaw]

The caption wa posted by a third party, namely CNN, it could not put loot as no one from CNN took the picture, like the photographer did when he mentioned the word looting.

The photographer knows where the bag originated from, CNN only sees a man in the water dragging the bag. The photographer is aware of the circumstances of the picture, CNN is not.

So the caption that CNN ran with: A man is seen "dragging" a bag in the water. They were correct and not reporting news, rather what they saw in the picture.

No one from CNN knows if the bag is his, where it came from, how it originated with this man.

Except the photograher who was actually there and witnessed how this man was in possession of this bag and where it came from.

It is not like CNN is a photo gallery, they are a news agency......

Remember the photo belongs to the person who took it, not CNN and BTW CNN would be in deep trouble if they use words in reference to black people and looting. Big time.....

Agencies that post pictures post what the artist(photographer) views when and how he took the picture.

The difference the artist who originated the picture and the news agency is using the picture.

Enough said..........like hearsay......

 

[TisHerself]

No that was not true no prisoner were released

 

[TisHerself]

Aussie, I hear everything you are saying and I know it is not only Australians who have those feelings. My family is in UK, talking to them on the phone they are in utter disbelief. Just as you are in your country, they are watching this unfold over there. My brother said to me "We are seeing such inhumanity, that is almost unbearable to those involved, and it is happening in the US in 2005".
Whether or not what happened, or is still happening in New Orleans was a racial issue, In reference to the evacuation and rescue efforts everyone will have there own oppinions. What I know is that as I watched this horrific disaster play out on my tv over the past week it affected my life profoundly. Tears rolled down my cheeks as I saw people trudge through water up to their waistes, they had lost everything, they had no homes to return to. Days went by, some had not eaten, had nothing to drink in days, thousands dead. Heralded into The Super Dome, supposedly a safe haven, only to be made prey to rapists and muggers. Then held there for days and could not get out. When I saw Sheppard Smith, and Geraldo Rivera (who happened to be inside the Super Dome on day 5) screaming into the mike with a 10mth old baby in his arms, tears streaming down his face, "Get these people help". And Shep interrupting Bill O'Rielly (imagine that) tears streaming down his face saying "I am not saying there is outright favouritism here but these people on this bridge have needed help for 2 days and The Mayor has been picking up others, and passing these people by. Sheppard's voice is going because he has been screaming. Out of this horror I have witnessed people who do care for their fellow man, who have incredible humanity. Sadly people who do not, this tragedy has shown the worst inhumanity to man. It has also shown me the incredible spirit of the people of the whole Gulf Coast who were affected by Katrina.
However to The Courage, The Character, The Strength and The Spirit of The people of New Orleans I Tip My Hat.

 

[Magnum PI]

Yes and no... I don't personally think it's so much about race as class - most people aren't too worried about being followed by a black guy in a nice suit; most people are worried about being followed by a white guy in gang attire. You get a high-crime area, and anyone would be worried about walking through there. The fact that poverty and violent crime go together, and that often race and income go together make for some racially biased statistics and facts that do mean people will be more worried with a black man than a white man, all things being equal; but what makes a neighborhood unsafe to walk through at night unless you look like you fit there is usually crime, not race.

I agree with you in a way, but when you say crime, you mean personal street crimes, muggings, rapes, drug use and things like that, right? Little Italy and China town in NYC are high crime areas, but most feel completely safe to walk the streets. Difference being, pros control the crime, and I don't mean the cops. Now let's go uptown, past 120th st...different deal altogether. I do see your point though. There are certainly other factors than race in the mix...mpi

 

[Details]

Yeah, street crime is what I am talking about. A wealthy neighborhood, with an abused wife behind every door is a bad place, but generally safe to walk thorugh. But where street gangs think they own the place, where a crime can be committed and people aren't surprised, don't want to get involved, etc. - that's where civilization has lost it's grasp, in part, and that's the places where you don't walk after dark.

Those areas are universally poor, but not universally of any one race.