Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Week 6: Response 2
The argument between the two newspapers definition on looting has sparked quite the controversy. I believe that the caption on the image of the black man carrying food he just took from a grocery is technically correct, it is looting. But on the other hand, the caption for the photo of the white couple is both right and wrong, the food originated from the store and was still in front of the store, therefore it was also looted. The difference between the captions is not those that are being depicted in the photos, but rather what the photographer and newspapers deem what is and isn’t looting. The controversy therefore is not if the newspapers were being racist, but rather what the newspapers should deemed looting, and they should give exceptions to the term. Both newspapers claim they have a standard for what should go into a caption, and both have stated that the photographer must think his caption through thoroughly before publishing it. It is hard for a photographer to write in a single sentence what they saw and how they can describe it. If both photographers had been able to write an article on what they had seen both in around to the photos they took, I’m sure the discussion would have gone differently. I believe that Chris Graythen’s caption should have been on both photos. In a time of a natural disaster, it is important for people to survive and if they must take food from stores that have been abandoned, then so be it. Chris gave a great response to the heat he received about his caption, and I agree that he did write his caption correctly, the couple was finding food. It is true that stores would have written off the food in them, and that it all would have been thrown out after the water subsided, so what would be the point in protecting the food from people who need it most. It was better for the stores to leave the food for people to take and eat it, rather than try to protect it or give it out. Because if they would have protected it, then they would have been looked down upon, whereas if they openly gave it out they would have been responsible for the health of the people especially if they got sick off the food they received.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment