The "Finding/Looting" Controversy
- Thread starter Illuminattile
- Start date
it's a very stupid controversy. it is something that should be focused on in the coming weeks, if even at all. news outlets make mistakes and dont pay attention sometimes about how something is worded or may look.
if yahoo had wrote both captions i could see this as a controversy. but it is two different news organizations. two different captions, written by different people
if yahoo had wrote both captions i could see this as a controversy. but it is two different news organizations. two different captions, written by different people
negative, the person who wrote the caption for the white pair said she assumedthey found the food, becasue she hadn't seen them loot so had to give benefit of the doubt
In regards to the black guy, the caption writer assumedhe looted becasue there were other people in the area looting
there were 'millions' of items floating around for the white pair, but nothing floating for the black guy. Damn everythings conspiring against the black guy.
In regards to the black guy, the caption writer assumedhe looted becasue there were other people in the area looting
there were 'millions' of items floating around for the white pair, but nothing floating for the black guy. Damn everythings conspiring against the black guy.
I read that bit but it's all foul to me. MILLIONS of items floating for the white pair. Nothing for the black guy.
Justifications also!!! How about writing 'took the food' for the black guy, because the 'food would have wasted away anyhow' for the black guy.
Even if the black guy hadn't been seen looting a store, then the spokepeople is never going to admit. They going to slide out of it, not dig themselves deeper.
Justifications also!!! How about writing 'took the food' for the black guy, because the 'food would have wasted away anyhow' for the black guy.
Even if the black guy hadn't been seen looting a store, then the spokepeople is never going to admit. They going to slide out of it, not dig themselves deeper.
The person who took the photo of the white couple did not see them looting, and so would have been wrong to say that they were. He took plenty of photos of genuine looters, black and white, and labelled those photographs accordingly.
The black guy was looting, regardless of whether or not he was justified in doing so. Perhaps if that photographer had taken the photograph of the white couple he would have labelled it as "looting" also.
The black guy was looting, regardless of whether or not he was justified in doing so. Perhaps if that photographer had taken the photograph of the white couple he would have labelled it as "looting" also.
The writer is so comfortable sitting in his lazy boy,drinking his coffee,pointdexter looking motherfucker has nothing better to do than slide in a few jabs. Calling it looting was unneccessary.I mean cmon,doesnt matter what he saw,he could have at least wrote that the black guy found the food.
Oh so now the media is all fuckin honest,hah,thats some bullshit right there. The media is always sparking controversy,making huge deals out of nothing,and writing bullshit. now they're being honest?
Oh so now the media is all fuckin honest,hah,thats some bullshit right there. The media is always sparking controversy,making huge deals out of nothing,and writing bullshit. now they're being honest?
Funny you should accuse him of '[sliding] in a few jabs', considering you've just insulted someone you don't know and have never seen.
Why shouldn't he write that the guy was looting if he was? Because he's black and he might get insulted and accused of racism by hypersensitive people on the internet?
Why shouldn't he write that the guy was looting if he was? Because he's black and he might get insulted and accused of racism by hypersensitive people on the internet?