that is a VERY broad generalization. Care to offer a justification? What about when underestimating would benefit an organization? Would they still overestimate in that instance?
9/12 March on Washington
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
that is a VERY broad generalization. Care to offer a justification? What about when underestimating would benefit an organization? Would they still overestimate in that instance?
Does it look edited in some fashion to you? Simply because it is youtube is no reason to dismiss it.
Let's say in this instance it would be more likely to over estimate to get out press coverage than underestimate. They had a pretty good idea of how many were in the buses... and then you have people flying in just for the event - or driving themselves.
They aren't going to say "oh about 20,000" and hope to get good coverage...
I suppose there might be instance where an organization would underestimate a turn out for an event on purpose - however when you get into the numbers that they are talking about (50,000+) it is very important to have the right amount of police coverage, etc.
I don't know about the editing - it looks like a commercial for the 9-12 group... doesn't the reporter look just a little too enthusiastic?
What I was questioning actually more was the length - it seems like a small amount of coverage, and on Beck's show - which could be biased since he is sort of a driving force behind this cause.
When Cal said coverage I though he meant FoxNews Coverage - not snippets during Beck's show...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Moving the goalposts again, I see.
If you don't meet Foxpaws' ever-widening standard, it didn't happen.
foss - your link has a headline that says one million - the meta file (the thing you see in the title of the page on the top of your browser) says up to two million and the photo caption says tens of thousands....
To say that everyone is all over the board on this is putting it mildly - even within the article that you posted they are all over the place...
To say that everyone is all over the board on this is putting it mildly - even within the article that you posted they are all over the place...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Nope - actually looking at the photos, and from a first hand account of a friend that was there I would look at the very low 100,000s - a very decent turnout... especially realizing that all those people got there on their own dime. Many rallies have opportunities for people to get there on 'grant-type' programs, people sponsor other people, organizations like churches get groups together and pay for the bus and gasoline and expenses so their people can go to the rallies. To do this on your own money is really cool. That is a very big turnout for something that is self funded.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
So, you're relying on photos and a friend who 'was there?' Did your 'friend' do a headcount? Do you even know how long it takes to count to one hundred thousand? :bowrofl: Don't give me a cramp from laughing. Talk about burden of proof! You cite anecdotal evidence while dismissing media reports? What a hypocrite!
Since the National Park Service relied on the media to get Obama's Inauguration numbers, I'm satisfied to rely on a media report for this event as well.
Foss - well, from photos you can tell how far the crowd goes back - you can tell by the streets and the pools that bisect the mall. All the photos I have seen have people going back to 3rd ... but pretty low density. The Park's people estimate with the 'ticketed' area (from the capitol to 3rd) is packed (like a rock concert) that about 1/4 million fit in that area. The density in the photos I have seen is maybe 1/2 to 1/3 the density of a rock concert - if that.
So, do you think they really counted the approximately one million people who were there in January? Even Fox is using the 70,000 or so number for this event - which is the number my friend guessed. I am being somewhat generous, because in the photos I have seen it looks like people are still coming in from Pennsylvania Ave. - quite a few...
And I know the Park Police won't estimate crowds - I said that earlier...
So, do you think they really counted the approximately one million people who were there in January? Even Fox is using the 70,000 or so number for this event - which is the number my friend guessed. I am being somewhat generous, because in the photos I have seen it looks like people are still coming in from Pennsylvania Ave. - quite a few...
And I know the Park Police won't estimate crowds - I said that earlier...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
So on one hand, you point out the Park's people's estimate and rely on it, and in the very same post, you agree that the Park Police won't estimate crowds.
Hoist by your own petard, eh?
The Park people have maps that generalize crowd count - these are from before the law that won't allow them to estimate crowd count... Because they used to estimate... the tools are still there - and it isn't hard to use them... (someone gave me this link - thank you - because of previous events I had been at I knew the area between the steps and 3rd equaled about 1/4 million people if packed - so it was nice to see the maps on the web that confirmed that).
So, if you know the mall - you can guess the crowd count using the Parks people's old maps...
If you notice the ticketed area is always 240,000 people - they expect the crowd to always be the tightest there... as the real estate expands, so does the space between people...
But, Foss - I am interested in why the story you posted floats all over the place - there is a huge difference from tens of thousands to 2 million people... why the big differences?
So, if you know the mall - you can guess the crowd count using the Parks people's old maps...
If you notice the ticketed area is always 240,000 people - they expect the crowd to always be the tightest there... as the real estate expands, so does the space between people...
But, Foss - I am interested in why the story you posted floats all over the place - there is a huge difference from tens of thousands to 2 million people... why the big differences?
Why did DEMOCRAT organizations estimate that up to 2 million people might show up? They have a vested interest in this NOT getting coverage.
they have more of an interest to make the group look bad - we talked about this a little bit earlier in the thread.
To discredit an organization you get into circulation before the event happens a huge number - in this case 2 million. It does a couple of things - it has a tendency to make the organizers claim that many people showed up, to save face... and then it makes the organization look bad when it becomes quite obvious that no where near that number actually showed up.
For instance, when Martin Luther King, Jr. was at the mall speaking in '63, the opposition stated that at least 1,000,000 people would be showing up - and then they claimed it was a failure when only 250,000 people were there to hear him speak.
Last edited by a moderator:
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Way more than a couple of hundred thousand my dear.
Time lapse of the march to the mall - over 2-1/2 hours
YouTube - 1.5 to 2 million march on Washington D.C Tea Party protest rally September 12 2009
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Way more than a couple of hundred thousand my dear.
Time lapse of the march to the mall - over 2-1/2 hours
YouTube - 1.5 to 2 million march on Washington D.C Tea Party protest rally September 12 2009
The crowd goes all the way back to the monument.
You can see that in some of the videos, including the clip I posted.
And that doesn't account for all the overflow that wasn't able to get on the mall.
Or couldn't get any public transportation into the Capitol.
You can see that in some of the videos, including the clip I posted.
And that doesn't account for all the overflow that wasn't able to get on the mall.
Or couldn't get any public transportation into the Capitol.
Which video Cal - i just reviewed all your posts - even want to the pajama link, the NRO link and the transterrestrial link and I didn't see any photos or video of the mall - the time line video is just of where constitution and Penn meet... with no time frame - you can't tell how long that video represents from the youtube link... there is no time stamping on it...
The Beck video doesn't show the mall - you can't see anything other than the immediate crowd...
MMs video at the end shows the crowd from the 'back' from 3rd - I have stood there a few times - that is the shot they are using there - the crowd from that point forward is probably in the 90,000 range.
Can you give me the post number?
Also - have you found the 'real' Fox News coverage - not just Beck's 4 minute overview?
At the 1:00 mark of the Beck video, the reporter states that the "sea of people goes all the way" to the Washington Monument one mile away.
I've put a variety of links up regarding objective parties estimating the turn out of the event. Everything from Reason Magazine to National Review Online, there is a growing consensus in the numbers- and it's not 70k.
Unfortunately, no one arranged for an areal photograph to be taken. So I'm not going to spend all night sitting here find pictures and reports only for you to continue asking for more because you're not convinced.
Your "friend" who happens to be a "Republican" was wrong.
And isn't it interesting that YOUR friend manages to agree with the low-ball ABC number, while EVERYONE ELSE who was at the event (even those who weren't participants) recognize that there were hundreds of thousands of people involved..... but YOUR friend just happened to agree with the MSM legacy media account.
You're right, those people might have been going to the massive pro-Obama rally later that day
Sure, I have it right here on my harddrive...
Beck covered the event for a few hours. That was just the first youtube clip I came across.... you're perfectly welcome to look for that information on line yourself, rather than giving me homework and shifting the burden here.
All evidence, EVERY OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS I have found indicates that the event was in the hundreds of thousands, if not a million. Find the picture from ABC or maybe some liberal troll blogger that demonstrates otherwise.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, they don't show the crowd on the Beck - he just talks about it - the CSPAN coverage shows the crowd at various points in its coverage the shot at the very front is very much a 100,000 type shot...
My friend has attended many, many rallies (and has been at almost all Inaugurals since Reagan's first, including Obama's). He was comparing the size of Obama's to this. He believes that Obama's was at 700,000, and he thought this was at 1/10th. I think Obama was at about 1 million - so 1/10th of that would be 100,000. Oh - his shot I posted earlier was at 1:00 - when the rally started.
Also - if you read almost every account this rally is the very first large rally that these people have attended. I would guess that they just don't have a lot of experience at this sort of thing... They wouldn't be very good at crowd count if they haven't been in a rally of 100,000. You need to have some experience to guess crowd size. 100,000 is a whole lot of people... 1,000,000 is a ridiculously large amount of people. Those pictures of the 9-12 rally don't even come anywhere close to this picture of Obama's Inaugural.
And this shot is from 3rd and beyond - remember, the crowd from 9-12 stopped at 3rd
And this is from a very conservative blog site - if you scroll down you see the blogger and his wife in front of the crowd shot - once again 3rd seems to be the point where the crowd stops - that really is about 100,000 at that density.
And this is a panorama from another blogger who was there - as you can see it stops at 3rd - it really doesn't go into the mall at all.. and it doesn't go onto the streets in front of the capitol - as well as the steps of the capitol. Obama got to use that huge amount of space for the crowd as well. There is a huge amount of difference between the 1 million at Obama's Inaugural and the xxx amount of people at the 9/12 rally.
Once again - 100,000 is a great number -
As far as the marching on constitution, it is really hard to tell what is happening without a time stamp. That could be 1-1/2 hours worth of people - 3 hours worth or 45 minutes worth - it is hard to tell
My friend has attended many, many rallies (and has been at almost all Inaugurals since Reagan's first, including Obama's). He was comparing the size of Obama's to this. He believes that Obama's was at 700,000, and he thought this was at 1/10th. I think Obama was at about 1 million - so 1/10th of that would be 100,000. Oh - his shot I posted earlier was at 1:00 - when the rally started.
Also - if you read almost every account this rally is the very first large rally that these people have attended. I would guess that they just don't have a lot of experience at this sort of thing... They wouldn't be very good at crowd count if they haven't been in a rally of 100,000. You need to have some experience to guess crowd size. 100,000 is a whole lot of people... 1,000,000 is a ridiculously large amount of people. Those pictures of the 9-12 rally don't even come anywhere close to this picture of Obama's Inaugural.
And this shot is from 3rd and beyond - remember, the crowd from 9-12 stopped at 3rd
And this is from a very conservative blog site - if you scroll down you see the blogger and his wife in front of the crowd shot - once again 3rd seems to be the point where the crowd stops - that really is about 100,000 at that density.
And this is a panorama from another blogger who was there - as you can see it stops at 3rd - it really doesn't go into the mall at all.. and it doesn't go onto the streets in front of the capitol - as well as the steps of the capitol. Obama got to use that huge amount of space for the crowd as well. There is a huge amount of difference between the 1 million at Obama's Inaugural and the xxx amount of people at the 9/12 rally.
Once again - 100,000 is a great number -
As far as the marching on constitution, it is really hard to tell what is happening without a time stamp. That could be 1-1/2 hours worth of people - 3 hours worth or 45 minutes worth - it is hard to tell
Last edited by a moderator:
So Cal - is a blog picture worth 100,000 people?
And finally from ABC News regarding the turn out, and Matt Kibbe's (the head of Freedom Works - the organization behind the event) retraction. Note that he said ABCs coverage was fair and honest - and remember ABC puts the attendance at 60,000 to 70,000 ...
As a result of Kibbe's erroneous attribution, several bloggers and commenters repeated the misinformation.
In his blog, Kibbe apologized Sunday for the mistaken attribution of the crowd-size estimated to ABC News.
"With a dead IPhone, I had been shown tweets from a number of different folks behind the stage citing the ABC estimate," he wrote. "They didn't say it. I regret misrepresenting the network, as their coverage that day was fair and honest."
And finally from ABC News regarding the turn out, and Matt Kibbe's (the head of Freedom Works - the organization behind the event) retraction. Note that he said ABCs coverage was fair and honest - and remember ABC puts the attendance at 60,000 to 70,000 ...
As a result of Kibbe's erroneous attribution, several bloggers and commenters repeated the misinformation.
In his blog, Kibbe apologized Sunday for the mistaken attribution of the crowd-size estimated to ABC News.
"With a dead IPhone, I had been shown tweets from a number of different folks behind the stage citing the ABC estimate," he wrote. "They didn't say it. I regret misrepresenting the network, as their coverage that day was fair and honest."
That's an incredible article.
First, I'm amazed how clueless the author is.
It's also funny how these people who want to support the "tens of thousands" figure love to take quotes and observations without any regard to when they were said.
For example, at the start of the paragraph, the author is perplexed by Jim Demint's comment that the New York Times was reporting that 500 people had turned out..... "Where DeMint read that story remains a mystery." IT WAS A JOKE. The media routinely and consistently UNDERSTATES the turn out to events like these and Demint was making a joke anticipating such a thing happening again.
Regarding the Kibbe quote, I think you linked it wrong.
ABC News Blog regarding Kibbe
Here's the complete blog written by Kibbe.
I don't know what to conclude after reading that blog posting? Is it double speak? Is he being political with ABC only talking about their event or pre-event coverage, unaware of the 60-70k ABC estimate that contradicts everything else he's said and implied in the blog? I don't know.
And in candor, I'm not much of a fan of that organization. I think that they pulled the permits, but they aren't responsible for the crowd, nor- as they seem to want to project, they aren't leading any movement. They through a party, and tens, or hundreds, of thousands of people crashed it.
First, I'm amazed how clueless the author is.
It's also funny how these people who want to support the "tens of thousands" figure love to take quotes and observations without any regard to when they were said.
For example, at the start of the paragraph, the author is perplexed by Jim Demint's comment that the New York Times was reporting that 500 people had turned out..... "Where DeMint read that story remains a mystery." IT WAS A JOKE. The media routinely and consistently UNDERSTATES the turn out to events like these and Demint was making a joke anticipating such a thing happening again.
Regarding the Kibbe quote, I think you linked it wrong.
ABC News Blog regarding Kibbe
Here's the complete blog written by Kibbe.
I don't know what to conclude after reading that blog posting? Is it double speak? Is he being political with ABC only talking about their event or pre-event coverage, unaware of the 60-70k ABC estimate that contradicts everything else he's said and implied in the blog? I don't know.
And in candor, I'm not much of a fan of that organization. I think that they pulled the permits, but they aren't responsible for the crowd, nor- as they seem to want to project, they aren't leading any movement. They through a party, and tens, or hundreds, of thousands of people crashed it.
I think the comparison of photos (Obama/9-12) is pretty telling. And I have stated earlier here that 100,000 people who came on their own dime (where Kibbe states in your last bolded part) is a pretty amazing thing. Maybe next time they will realize when you march on the Capitol it is best to do it during the week, when the elected officials are at work, in the Capitol, and they can see you and hear you. I realize 9/12 has a special meaning to the group organizing this - but, they need to set aside that and figure out the best way to get their voices heard.
However, I guess the question would be - now what? A big rally in DC - so, more rallies? Doesn't there have to be at some point some organization to start to find a means to an end? They appear to want to change the political landscape - Beck is already calling for 56 're-signers' or something to that effect.
Will it be easy to get these people, who seem to be distrustful of organized politics into organized politics? It doesn't make much sense to vote people out of office if you don't have a viable alternative to vote into office. They seem to not like democrats or republicans at this point.
It is interesting Cal how you mentioned that you aren't a fan of the group that pulled the permits. It appears that some of the people who attended think somewhat the same way. They don't want to be 'labeled' as part of any group. Much as they vehemently deny that they aren't against just democrats or just republicans, that they are against all politicians that don't agree with their sentiment of less government. That could make it difficult for them to enact any change in the system. At some point you probably need to organize as a group - but if you are distrustful of groups, how do you get around the dichotomy?
However, I guess the question would be - now what? A big rally in DC - so, more rallies? Doesn't there have to be at some point some organization to start to find a means to an end? They appear to want to change the political landscape - Beck is already calling for 56 're-signers' or something to that effect.
Will it be easy to get these people, who seem to be distrustful of organized politics into organized politics? It doesn't make much sense to vote people out of office if you don't have a viable alternative to vote into office. They seem to not like democrats or republicans at this point.
It is interesting Cal how you mentioned that you aren't a fan of the group that pulled the permits. It appears that some of the people who attended think somewhat the same way. They don't want to be 'labeled' as part of any group. Much as they vehemently deny that they aren't against just democrats or just republicans, that they are against all politicians that don't agree with their sentiment of less government. That could make it difficult for them to enact any change in the system. At some point you probably need to organize as a group - but if you are distrustful of groups, how do you get around the dichotomy?
Last edited by a moderator:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
What opposition was that? Got a cite?
No, because the kind of Americans who showed up don't pander the government for a living and have to WORK during the week. It was held on a Saturday and people were available to attend because it was their day off.