Centerfield

Is this Centrist Coalition or Right Wing Talking Points Coalition?

"all over the wires today"?

I looked at www.cnn.com. I looked at www.nytimes.com. If Sheehan's in the news, I must have overlooked it. All Rita, all the time.

"with the usual worshipful tone"

That tells me far more about you than the it does about the media.

The reality is that Sheehan's protest...scrounged up THIRTY PEOPLE."

Read the whole thing, as they say. Today is a small group of relatives of dead soldiers delivering a letter. TOMORROW they expect 100,000 people.

If 100,000 show up for Sheehan's protest, are you going to write a new post about how wrong you are?

(DISCLAIMER: I think Sheehan's a loud-mouthed left-wing tool. With all due respect to the mother of a dead soldier, of course.)

I think that providing this sort of context is important, especially in cases of protest. Newspapers should tell us so we can know, not leave room for spin. However, in the case of these photos, I think it makes sense to eschew positing malice.

Sure, it's possible

I think Oberon also makes a good point about what the tenor of the nation re:Iraq is, and I'll address that in the thread I'm about to start.

If I hadn't seen the every-two-minute updates (hyperbole--it was more like half-hourly) on the Sheehan thing over the AP and AFP wires, I'd be calling it a right-wing chatter point myself. What I noticed was that the heaviest coverage came from AFP, the Sheehan people themselves, and the right-wing blogs going nuts about it. Yeah, the photog framed the shots to make the teeny "crowd" look huge. Just as they did in Crawford with her photo ops--when a pull-back shot showed that most of the "crowd" was other photogs desperately trying to get in for a shot of their own.

Sheehan is so stage-managed by professional far-left agitators that it's tough to expect anything else from the coverage, and it's reached the point where only the really rabid True Believers give a hoot. She's marginalized herself out of relevance, something that began even before the news cycle filled with Katrina. Oberon nails it in his parenthized closer. And he's right in that none of the biggies gave Sheehan so much as a nod yesterday.

Fork, indeed.

My post above is cryptic due a failure to preview. My bad. Somehow I left out the point that a photography class's first lesson is "fill the frame." These shots may be due to a conspiracy, or due to professional handling as Tully notes. But photogrpahers looking to sell photos want them to be emotionally evocative. Journalism consumers may think want a documentary style, but both photographers and editors know that doesn't sell. They want a protest photo that shows strife and confrontation, up in your grill. The matter of a headcount is generally left to the discretion and therefore diligence of the reporter.

No doubt in my mind. I do it myself when trying for good shots. The wonder of digital is that you can shoot lots and diddle to frame and fit for the "best" (most artistic, striking, likely to sell) photo.

In Crawford there was no doubt about the Sheehan org attempts to "frame" everything to make Camp Casey look much larger and more populated than it was. It was amusing watching the working press photogs supplying all the raw imagery and full shots over the wires. If they were actively trying to "frame" their shots for political twisting we'd have never seen the wide shots. But they came through in droves.

Now, why the various outlets chose the shots they did as their published work is another debate entirely.

seems much ado about nothing here....the big shebang will be happening tomorrow.

Speaking of pictures I like this one of Arnold announcing his re-election before a small crowd in San Diego at an invitation only "town hall meeting".
I think I see one black person in the picture.
And heck, why isn't he out in the open somewhere with thousands to cheer him on?

Probably because his real name is Gray Scharzenegger.

Speaking of framing photos to suit one's political agenda, what's this supposed to mean? Is he supposed to be John Lennon? Or Winston Churchill?

Both, I think. ;-)

Surprise, surprise. Little Green Footballs and Confederate Yankee got it wrong. Both weblogs posted their stories regarding the anti-war protest march in Washington D.C. on September 21st when the march wasn't even scheduled until today, September 24th. And the news coming out of Washington D.C. is that the number of protesters gathered for this march is in the range of 2000+, which while nowhere near the 100,000 that some predicted, is far more than the 30 that Little Green Footballs and Confederate Yankee claimed.

Simon,

Is linking to Little Green Footballs and Confederate Yankee supposed to be swaying our opinions TOWARD your side? Little Green Footballs and Confederate Yankee have been two of the MOST partisan weblogs during the course of the Iraq War. I went to their websites to read their commentary regarding the antiwar protest march (which hadn't even occurred yet at the time they were reporting on it), and I can tell you that calling people "communists" and "anti-American" for opposing the war (as posters at these blogs repeatedly write) is certainly not going to win them or the pro-war side any supporters. Not only is this type of rhetoric mean-spirited, but it makes ENTIRLELY NO SENSE!

Communists believe in militarism and expansion of the powers of the central government. How is opposing the war or the growing power of the federal government in ANY WAR an endorsement of Communism? It is Orwellian double-speak at its core for pro-war apologist blogs to accuse antiwar protesters of being communists.

Isn't it funny how pro-war bloggers point out all far-leftist/Communistic sympathizer organizations (i.e. ANSWER) that attend these rallies but never point out the libertarians and paleoconservatives who have been at the heart of the antiwar movement? Funny, I say, but not surprising. It's all part of the pro-war bloggers attempt to make the war into a left vs. right, "I'm a patriot, you're unAmerican" false dichotomy.

I happened to have voted Libertarian last November, and I can tell you that Libertarians have been the most consistently anti-war segment of the population since the Vietnam War, opposing Democratic and Republican administrations alike. I defy anyone from Little Green Footballs, Confederate Yankee, or any other pro-war webblog to say to me with a straight face that Libertarians are Communists.

It is intellectually dishonest for pro-war bloggers to suggest that far-leftists and communists constitute a majority of the antiwar movement. They may be a vocal segment of the antiwar movement, but surely no more vocal than the many libertarians and paleoconservatives who have vehemently spoken out against the Iraq War and the current administration.

And getting back to the subject of your post, which I presume was the mainstream media going to great lengths to mislead the American public into believing that the antiwar-movement is stronger than it truly is, I have to say that I don't approve of distortion of the facts in either direction, either for or against the war. But have to laugh when I hear pro-war apologists rant and rave about the mainstream media misleading the American people into believing something that isn't true.

If that's not an example of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

Nice try, nic.

The stories referenced do NOT mix up or misrepresent the "march" of the other day with today's scheduled protest, as you claim. Only you are doing that. They simply point out how small Sheehan's group was the other day, and how closely cropped the photos were.

The "100,000" estimate was that of the organizer's for today's march. Said organizer was International ANSWER, a front group for the Stalinist Worker's World Party. I watched much of the rally on C-Span this morning. Even with C-SPAN not giving any wide shots of the "crowds," it was apparent that the protestors were a coupla zeroes short of their 100K.

It didn't come across as an anti-war rally. It came across as a far-leftist anti-American rally. No libertarians in evidence. Scads of the "usual suspects." The first speaker expressed solidarity with the Iraqi "resistance." Jesse Jackson came along to introduce Mother Sheehan, comparing her to Rosa Parks. (I'm not kidding.) Mother Sheehan was, um, how do I put it kindly? Only occasionally vaguely coherent.

Then it was time for some pro-Palestinian Jew-baiting by a Jew (Josh Reubner of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation) accompanied by the inevitable pleas for money to fund "The Cause."

After that I confess I wasn't paying nearly as much attention, because it was repetitive and really boring, and the "drum circle" made listening difficult. Up with Cuba. Down with America. Up with Palestine. Down with Israel (and America). Up with al Qaeda and the Saddamites, um, I mean, "the insurgency." Down with America. Yada. Yada yada. Yada yada yada.

George Galloway. Ramsey Clark. Michael Shehadeh. Cynthia McKinney. Ralph Nader. Mahdi Bray. Jessica Lange. The very best of the far left, no doubt.

It's all because of the Jews. Free Palestine! Free New Orleans! End the Occupation! Yada. Yada yada. Yada yada yada.

I don't know where the unseen tens of thousands were. They certainly weren't on the Ellipse where the speakers were. At my most generous count, maybe 5,000 people there. No libertarians speaking, none in sight. I hope C-SPAN or someone posts a transcript. Some aerial shots of the "crowd" and the march would be nice. One suspects the National Book Festival across the way had higher attendance.

D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey says "they probably hit that."

Jean, he also said he wasn't counting, was happy they were peaceful, and that was good enough for him. (I saw more of the interview.) But you only find the one "money quote" in the wire reports. Washington PD and Parks Police quit giving crowd estimates in '95 after they pissed off Louis Farrakhan at the Million Man march by actually reporting numbers under a million. Farrakhan claimed 2 mil, parks police initially reported 400K, Farrakhan threatened to sue (!) and later aerial analysis indicated about 700-800K.

I've only found one aerial shot, from Reuters, and it looks like more than 5K at the Ellipse and approaches but it's sure as hell not 100K. The resolution of the posted shot is too poor for a decent density count, but the amount of open space visible is considerable, even where there are people. You can tell how big the areas is by the WHite House in the background. I've seen 100K in one place. That isn't it by a very very long shot.

It's conceivable they had 100K in the city. They sure weren't on the Ellipse during the speechifying. Call me cynical ('cause it's true!) but if they were obviously at 100K or over some of the media would be trumpeting it. They're not. Instead the media is being cautious and ambiguous in their phrasing. "Vast numbers." "Tens of thousands" (meaning 20K+). And so on.

The Kossacks are currently debating whether it's a very bright thing for the Dems to be associated with the International ANSWER freak show. Guess they caught the speeches.

O.K., Tully, you're a cynic, (but hey, I knew that all along. ;-)

My point was, however far off from 100,000 people the organizers claimed, it was a lot more than the 30 Simon mentioned, as seen here. I included the previous link because it was from a fairly neutral source cited in a fairly neutral news organization. Do you have the link for the full interview? If so, I'd like to read it.

I'm afraid I haven't checked in at Kos for a while. That'll be my next stop.

Sure it was a lot more than the 30! Different marches, different days. I wish I'd kept track of all the links, though, because at last one of the stories on the Friday "walk to the White House" of thirty cited the number as "several dozen." LOL. "Several" meaning "more than one." Just as "tens of thousands" means 20K+, a far shout from 100K.

The point of the original post was the photo-cropping that made those thirty people look like a real crowd. The rightie blogs tried to make it sound as if the event was all over the news and being misrep'd as cooperative media hype, and it really wasn't (IMHO). They wanted to denigrate that small number in advance as part of their own agitprop, ridiculing the Sheehan camp. And they wanted to cry "Media Bias!" so they could advance-slant Saturday. I think they're stretching for the chatter, as wingers so love to do.

I suspect the continual wire story updates Friday were just PR releases from the Sheehan camp attempting to generate buzz--and despite what the righties were saying, the releases failed to get much traction at all with the big outlets. During August we saw similar photo-cropping from Crawford. It got more coverage in the MSM because there wasn't much else going on. What wasn't BS PR shots from the Sheehan people turned out to be wire service shots cropped down to give good close-ups, and the raw shots also went out over the wires. The righties were annoyed that the media didn't use the wide shots to ridicule the Sheehan mob. Heh.

Yesterday's march was a different event, duh. The organizers claimed 100K (actually some of the masses are now claiming 300K, which is hilariously obvious nonsense). The only thing resembling any confirmation of the 100K figure from any remotely official outside source is that "money quote," which is just as solid as fog. "Think." "Probably." Uh huh. Even the media outlets that are reliably biased whenever it can be justified don't back that up, and load their articles with disclaimers and fuzzy numbers.

Bottom line to me--it would require some serious evidence to convince me of 100K. There simply weren't anywhere near that many at the Ellipse for the speechifying, by a full order of magnitude. If you told me 40-60K for the entire affair (speeches, march, scattered sub-group protests, concert) I might be able to buy it. The aerial shot from Reuers can be found here. Even the large number of people beyond the trees that could not be seen on the C-SPAN broadcast would not double the crowd visible in the Ellipse itself--the density is much lower, you can see pavement everywhere on that street. The speaker stacks and the stage are in the middle of the Ellipse. You can see a similar "ground count" dynamic at work in this article on a 2003 anti-war protest in San Francisco, which was claimed at 200K and surveyed out at 65K. Here's the SF Indymedia post and pics of the same event.

For some real amusement, check out this Kos Kidz advice thread to the rally organizers from Thursday, and don't miss the comment thread. It's hilarious--the Kossacks nailed it to a "T," and well in advance. The more earnest and serious "progressives" are finally waking up to the fact that it can be rather important to be careful in choosing your "friends." The Kossacks argued for effective and focused protest, for dumping the side issues and agendas, but the rally yesterday brought out the usual motley crew of the socialist psuedo-hippie Far Left. Complete to that annoying drum circle and the incessant pro-Palestinian Jew-baiting.

When there are clowns to the left of you, jokers to the right, you might as well get a laugh out of the circus. ;-)

The Washington Post reports:

Protest organizers estimated that 300,000 people participated, triple their original target. D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey, who walked the march route, said the protesters achieved the goal of 100,000 and probably exceeded it. Asked whether at least 150,000 showed up, the chief said, "That's as good a guess as any.

So it's settled then . . . D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey is part of the far-leftist, antiAmerican antiwar movement. I mean, 100,000 antiwar protesters? That's not what Confederate Yankee or Little Green Footballs are reporting, and surely they're a far more reliable, less partisan source than the D.C. Police Chief, right?

OK. So I'm being a bit overly facetious. But here's the funny thing. If I were to link to moveon.org or Michael Moore's website in order to butress my arguments against the war, I would be roundly criticized for linking to such sites . . . and rightly so, as Michael Moore and moveon.org have proven themselves to be complete and utter partisans whose hypocrisy underminds the very arguments they claim to be making.

Yet, people here will link to mean-spirited, partisan, unapologetically pro-war blogs such Little Green Footballs and Confederate Yankee as if the talking points offered by these blogs somehow strengthens the posters argument for the war and against the antiwar movement. I can tell you now that you continue to fall back on blogs like these in order to make your arguments you are (1) not going to win over any supporters and (2) going to to the respect of independent-minded people who really don't care for the mindless left vs. right/patriotic vs. unpatriotic rhetoric offered up by these blogs.

Contrast Little Green Footballs and Confederate Yankee with Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan has been a supporter of the war since it's exception and even went to great lengths to defend it after things started going wrong. I strongly disagree with his position that we were right to invade Iraq and that we shouldn't not pull out. Yet respect him as a blogger because he doesn't resort to the ad hominem attacks found on other blogs and also because he is at least willing to criticize the administration and fellow war proponents. He doesn't call members of the antiwar movement "Communists." Nor does he call them "unAmerican" or "moonbats."

And in case you thinking I'm harping on the pro-war side, let me tell you this. I know a fair number of conservatives who support the war. And to be completely honest, among all of my peers, they're the ones who tend to be the most mature and knowledgeable (perhaps because they also tend to be a bit older and thus "wiser"). I can have reasonable conversations with such people (without being called unAmerican or Communist for my views) and even learn something in the process. I can respect these people. What I cannot respect are partisan bloggers who hide behind their computers writing vindictive ad hominem attacks that they would never have the courage to utter to--say--a neighbor or a coworker.

And finally, regarding the association of Communists/far-leftists with the antiwar Movement. 1) A majority of Americans now believe that the invasion of Iraq was wrong, and a majority of Americans also believes that we should withdraw at least SOME of our ~140,000 troops that are stationed in Iraq. 2) Communists/far leftists make up a very small percentage of the American population. Thus, it is empirically true that communists/far leftists make up a small minority of those who are calling for a withdrawal of some or all of our troops from Iraq. They just happen to be a very loud and obnoxious minority (in the same way that that the followers of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are but a small and obnoxious minority of the millions of Americans who are pro-life).

And yes, Tully, although you won't here it much from the pro-war bloggers, libertarians stand solidly behind Sheehan. Not because they approve of her leftist positions but because they are in favor of a withdrawing from Iraq. In fact, I know of at least one libertarian who flew all the way from Japan to visit Sheehan at camp Casey. The fact that so many libertarians support Sheehan just goes to show how utterly ridiculous the "guilt by association" attack on Sheehan is. Communists support Sheehan's cause, so Sheehan must be some sort of Communist-sympathizer. However, libertarians also support Sheehan's cause, so Sheehan must be some sort of libertarian sympathizer. Yet communism and libertarianism are completely at odds with one another, which goes to show just how ridiculous it is to accuse Sheehan in believing in an agenda just because some of her supporters do.

There are several glaring spelling/grammatical errors in my post above.

My bad.

The following (and perhaps most important) paragraph

Yet, people here will link to mean-spirited, partisan, unapologetically pro-war blogs such Little Green Footballs and Confederate Yankee as if the talking points offered by these blogs somehow strengthens the posters argument for the war and against the antiwar movement. I can tell you now that you continue to fall back on blogs like these in order to make your arguments you are (1) not going to win over any supporters and (2) going to to the respect of independent-minded people who really don't care for the mindless left vs. right/patriotic vs. unpatriotic rhetoric offered up by these blogs.

should read

Yet, people here will link to mean-spirited, partisan, unapologetically pro-war blogs such Little Green Footballs and Confederate Yankee as if the talking points offered by these blogs somehow strengthens the poster's argument for the war and against the antiwar movement. I can tell you now that you continue to fall back on blogs like these in order to make your arguments you are (1) not going to win over any supporters and (2) going to lose the respect of independent-minded people who really don't care for the mindless left vs. right/patriotic vs. unpatriotic rhetoric offered up by these blogs.

The other errors I believe to be rather self-explanatory by virtue of their context.

Nic,

I for one take the real arguements against the war seriously. To my mind there were/are valid reasons against the war. But I have a real problem with the leadership the anit-war folks have chosen to carry their banner. Put 100 people in front of the White House presenting reasoned arguements and I will listen. Cram a million protesters into DC listening to the emotional and narcissitic outbursts of Sheehan and Jackson and my evaluation of the American IQ drops 5 points. Why can't an intelligent anti-war arguement (and they are out there) bubble to the surface? So far what we are watching is not public discourse. It looks like an oldie but goldie rerun of the '60s. If the issue and its consequences weren't so important it would be slightly amusing.

It's hard not to take potshots at the emotional fringe no matter how large the numbers, no matter which side of the fence they are on. It's human nature. And by the leadership the anti-war movement has chosen it makes it much harder to take them seriously.

Dennis

ROFLMAO. Better check your med doses, nic. Or quit using the BabbleRant Generator to write your posts. They might get more coherent.

What Dennis said. I take serious anti-war arguments seriously. I take the mindless rants of the perpetually disgruntled not seriously at all. Either side. I didn't see any on C-Span yesterday. BTW, "As good a guess as any" is not a confirmation of anything. It's an acknowledgement that the assessment is pure guesswork, and meaningless. That Bubba's guess of 14 hippies and an old blind dog is just as good as the utterer's. Give me aerial photos and density counts any day.

Yet, people here will link to mean-spirited, partisan, unapologetically pro-war blogs such Little Green Footballs and Confederate Yankee as if the talking points offered by these blogs somehow strengthens the posters argument for the war and against the antiwar movement. I can tell you now that you continue to fall back on blogs like these in order to make your arguments you are (1) not going to win over any supporters and (2) going to to the respect of independent-minded people who really don't care for the mindless left vs. right/patriotic vs. unpatriotic rhetoric offered up by these blogs.

For the record (though I understand completely that reality is lost to you) I would like to note that the person who linked to those blogs in the comment thread was....nicrivera! I linked to the nasty deluded right-wing sites of SFGate.com (San Francisco Chronicle), Yahoo/Reuters, SF Indymedia, and Daily Kos.

OK, OK, break it up, everybody!

Jeez, can't I leave you guys alone for a minute? ;-)

Tully is right; there are crazies on the left. Nic is right; there are crazies on the right too. There are crazies in all political movements. And it's usually the crazies claim the spotlight and the photos, who yell the slogans loudest and make the wildest speeches and embarass the heck out of the calm, thoughtful majority.

I wish there was a way for 100 calm, thoughtful anti-war folks to gather peacefully in front of the WH and present their views. Unfortunately, in today's news driven world, such a demonstration would be ignored by most of the news outlets, if it wasn't out-and-out hijacked by the crazies. I wish I was wrong, but...has anyone ever heard of a demonstration like that succeeding in DC?

Well I was there in DC on Saturday.
CSPAN stated at least 500,000 CNN stated at least 600,000 and Id say that is an undercount. The streets were jam packed from sidewalk to sidewalk for 3 1/2 Miles, plus Elipse circle packed.

without any question a flat minimum of 1/2 Million were there just yesterday, that doesn't count the ones that came today, or tomorrow either.

Face it.

Meanwhile and im going to be generous here, id say maybe 100-150 total showed up for that pathetic little Pro War manure today at the national Mall, was pretty hilarious.

I was in DC on Saturday.
I would say there were about 75,000 at the rally. But that's not why we went. We didn't go to support a few websites. We went to protest a war of lies.

The streets were packed shoulder to shoulder front to back- waiting for the March. We didn't go to hear speakers. We went to March. We were lined up LONG before the March started-we finished the 3 plus mile March of solid packed people. There were so many people lined up to march- that when the rally ended- they had no place to go. They had to wait. We finished our 3 plus mile slow, tight packed March, which took hours--& People were still waiting to start their March- just as packed as the beginning-just as enthusiastic & we surounded the entire city with 25-35 across- solid packed people & couldn't fit them all on the streets of the march at once.

You do the math. over 3 miles of streets. 25 across & give them 5 foot inbetween (very modest)
You can forget the people that we couldn't fit on the streets or the people who just went for the rally's & not the March. I would say that CNN's first reported number was correct- if not low.

& to think that all the east coast Amtrack trains were shut down & the local transportation was shut down for that day. Amtrack says that they had more than 100,000 MORE travelors that day than the average Saturday.

It must really bug some of you to know that the anti-war sentiments are at a all time high & that the presidents ratings are at an all time low.

Here is a photo showing just a tiny fraction, this is just one street corner, at the same time this photo was taken Elipse circle was jam packed with 200,000+, this crowd you see here continues exactly like this sidewalk to sidewalk for 3 MILES.

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/media/image/3/large/dc.9.24.05.jpg

Here is another tiny section of the crowd which looked exactly like this for 3+ miles.

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/media/image/13/large/washington-demo.jpg

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/media/image/12/large/bushmf.jpg

Can deny all you wish, wont change the facts that 1/2 a MILLION+ were in Washington DC protesting that POS Dubya.

Oh and that arial shot from Rueters was taken very early sometime before 10am.
By 12 Noon the crowd was about double that, by 1pm even more, by 2pm was insane, wall to wall people for miles.

Molly,

As a supporter of the war it does bother me that anti-war sentiment is high and rising. I'm bothered but not that suprised by the president's low favorability ratings. The lack of the will of the American people was my main misgiving going into the Iraq war. President Bush has proven to be an ineffectual leader in shaping public opinion. Hopefully we aren't in such a poisoned atmosphere that some future president can't do a better job. We have some large problems both domestic and foreign facing us. There is always going to be large number of people against any solutions proposed.

The number of protesters carries some weight of course, there is a critical mass over time to these things when changing government policies. I would still like to see some logical arguments from the leadership. (And possibly a little less face painting and gawdy outfits in the crowd :}

----
I agree with Nic that the links to the rightwing blogs (in the original post) are out of place on a centrist blog.

Dennis

Oxblog's David Adesnik — who has always struck me as a fair and reasonable commentator — has a series of posts, here, here, and here, on the protests' size, messages, and make-up. He estimates 75 - 150K as the crowd size.

I've been in 75-150K crowds many many times.
Have been to 7 Mardi Gras is New Orleans with crowds est. ranging from 600,000 up to (2 Million in 1999) This crowd was without question at the very least as big as the smallest Mardi Gras I've been to and that is being conservative.
CNN's estimate of 600,000 (and that was early around 12 noon) is close, and that doesn't count all the people they tried desperately to stop from coming by shutting down Amtrak in NY, plus the Metro in DC which is why so many showed up later.

This was WAY bigger than any 150K by a long shot, flat minimum of 500,000, and no amount of Republican spin is going to change that.

There were more than 75K in JUST the Ellipse alone and that was a very tiny fraction of the overall numbers, just before the March started there were at least 100-125K at the very least in just the Ellipse (around 2pm)and easily 3-4X that many in the streets lined up for MILES.

Trying to downplay the crowd just makes republicans look more pathetic and desperate.

Meanwhile did ya see that huge crowd of PRO War lunatics? ROTFL

I have yet to count more than 100 on any video I have seen of the event, such as the one from CSPAN which showed it start to finish, 100 or so extreme far Reich lunatics showed up to that joke, meanwhile no less than 500,000 to the Anti-War march....Hmmmm Gee whom do you "really" think is in the minority here?

Have a good laugh at this paultry crowd~~~scratch that~~ this is not big enough to be called a "crowd" lets just say "gathering" LOL

rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/iraq/iraq092505_honorrally.rm?mode=compact

I see you haven't updated your journal today; so I won't be making accusations about artful editng. Perhaps today when you update your journal you will note that there was a massive march on Saturday. Or, maybe you don't know, because there was so little new coverage. I was there; and it was huge. I can't find any pictures that make it look as big as it was. An aerial photo would be the only way to show it. There were people as far as the eye could see. I don't care if you agree with the rally. You get to think anything you want about the war, the president or the color pink. That the march filled the streets for hours and hours is just a fact.

I agree with Nic that the links to the rightwing blogs (in the original post) are out of place on a centrist blog

Why? To be clearer, I would agree completely that wing blogs are lousy info sources, highly selective and slanted reference sources, but they're the exact place to look for what's being argued and claimed on the wings.
----------------------------------------

David, I read OxBlog all the time, and think it's one of the more thoughtful and intelligent liberal blogs around. I can't give Adesnik's his counts much weight simply because he has no reference except the NYC 2004 protest, which he "pegs" at 500K. It is near impossible to estimate crowd sizes from the ground without a walk-by video count or good aerial shots. (See below about the NYC crowd counts for the August 29 march.)

I note he echoes the Kossacks' complaints about the protests and the organizers. The righties scream and yell that the MSM is cropping photos and not detailing the radical nature of the speakers, etc. The lefties scream and yell that the MSM is intentionally downplaying and ignoring the size and import and "mainstream nature" of the protestors. Uh huh. It never seems to occur to the radical left that the media is doing them a favor by NOT covering the protests in depth. It certainly did occur to the Kossacks and David Adesnik. Similarly, the right wants focused coverage that emphasizes only what works for them.

------------------------------------------

flat minimum of 500,000, and no amount of Republican spin is going to change that.

ROFLMAO & QED. Nunyabiz, you're such an obvious tool. Do you think we haven't been besieged by the winger propaganda of both ends from the moment this blog became active, lo so many moons ago? Save it for the Koolaid drinkers. If 75K were at the rally I saw on C-Span, at least 65K of them were very very short midgets hiding in the grass, because they didn't appear on camera. I love the claims of half a million total. If CNN "reported" 600K it has managed to miss being archived at their web site, and C-Span didn't really report at all, they just carried feed. I'd also note the difference between someone on camera saying "500K" (as one of the rally speakers did, right before another crowd shot that made it extremely obvious it wasn't so) and an actual count.

But never fear, here comes the Nunyabiz cavalry to propagate the party line with more fuzzy ground pics of street scenes, which you only have to multiply by whatever claim you like to reach whatever figure you like. I especially like the unsourced "time claim" on the only aerial shot available, that Reuters photo, which had no time stamp and didn't hit the wires until 5pm Eastern. The only solid evidence available must certainly be argued against, after all. Did you take that photo, Nunya? No? Did you personally count the troops, standing on a corner with a clicker until they all walked by? Do you know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall?

Crowd shot of the January 18, 2003 march in Washington. I really like this one, because it's such a clear demonstration of why you simply can not believe numbers offered by organizers--or anyone--without a good photo-analysis and density count. The crowd was estimated at from 30K to 500K. Quite a range, no? The high estimate came from the organizers UFPJ and ANSWER, which initially estimated 125K, then 300K, then 500K. The lower 30K-50K estimates from independent observors. Ramsey guesstimated this one at "around 100K."

Oct 25, 2003 rally in Washington: Crowd shots here and here. Actual crowd estimates by independent observors ranged from 20K to 50K, organizers claimed 100K to 500K, depending on the interviewee and the time order. Same organizers as this last one, BTW. Organizers (Once again, UFPJ and ANSWER) initially claim claim 100K, then 200K, then 500K. Sound familiar? Chief Ramsey guesstimated that one at 40K to 50K, other Capital Police officials said 30K to 50K.

March 20, 2004 rally in NYC: Police and independent observers estimate 30K-35K. UFPJ and ANSWER organizers initially claim 100K, later up estimate to 200K. Is there a pattern developing here, eh? Sound familiar?

August 29, 2004 rally in NYC on the eve of the GOP convention: Organized by UFPJ/ANSWER. Crowd shot here. Independent observer estimates vary from 100K-250K, unofficial police estimate is 120K-150K. Organizers predicted they'd get 250K turnout, later claim actual turnout was 400K, then up it to 500K. Nope, no pattern here!

Moral: Believe what you can prove with independent evidence, not interested-party anything.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What is your point in respect to the Sept. 21st event. It was clear that thousands of people were in DC over the weekend to protest the war in solidarity with Sheehan. Those numbers speak volumes.

My point was that protest march and rally numbers are routinely and massively inflated by the organizers, Robert, which is directly germane to the original post and thread.

Warning: Protest may be larger than it appears! I didn't go through the trouble of reading all of the replies (why don't they fit on the screen?), but I have to point out that the actual march was held on Saturday the 25th. I was there and from my experience and vantage point it was huge. Unfortunately, I have been unable to confirm my impressions because the cops refused to speculate and the Parks Department long ago stopped putting out official crowd estimates. All the Police Chief would say was that the organizers achieved the desired 100,000 people that was designated on the permit. Of course, the media took this evasive answer as gospel and all the headlines read "100,000 Attend Rally" and referred to "tens of thousands" of marchers. In reality, the number was much higher and the articles probably should have read "hundreds of thousands". C-Span estimates ran as high as 500,000 and the ANSWER coalition put the figure at 300,000. If anything, the mass media played down the size and importance of the protest. I only saw one helicopter the entire time and I'm pretty sure it was the fuzz. Apparently, all of the news choppers are down in the Gulf beaming us pictures of stagnant water. The only aerial photograph I have seen is the Reuters one (linked above) and it clearly doesn't show the whole crowd. The crowd is still at full density where its cut off. It appears to show either the beginning or the end of the march. To put things into perspective, we didn't even make it onto the ellipse. We stood in place for nearly a hour "marching" with a coalition of religious groups before we took to the sidewalk and saw that there was a bottleneck at the corner. Apparently, the march had started in several places at once. We walked around the clog and walked the rest of the route to the White House shoulder to shoulder with the crowd stretching as far as the the eye could see. Afterwards, we drove out of the city all jazzed up about participating in such a historic protest. We turn on NPR and just in time for a news update and we hear the phrase "tens of thousands of marchers". What a let down. I've been at other protests including WTO protests and anti-war rallies before the war and this was in a different league. The fact of the matter is that there was a relatively tiny media presence at this rally. This is probably due to the events on the Gulf, which is unfortunate because I think it was the events on the Gulf that brought many of the protesters. In addition, the town was practically empty. Both the Republican and Democratic leadership had fled the city. And lastly, officials responsible for controlling the crowd refused to estimate its size. This all begs the question: "What if everyone showed up to protest a war...and no one cared?" If you want some good coverage of the march go to antiwar.com, a libertarian website that gives a very accurate portrayal of what it was like to be there. I also have to agree that alot of weirdos and radicals do show up for these events and it undermines the cause to some extent. But for every freak that turned up there were a hundred normal citizens.

boy this is a lot of hot air over nothing.

Anti-war protest - lots of people 75,000 or 750,000, that's a lot of people.
pro-Bush/war demonstration - itty bitty, especially if you can actually count them all manually.
That's all you really ned to know. the rest is just details over politics.

Does it mean much? To the GOP in power not much, they don't care - at least outwardly. But it does underscore a deep discontent with current policy (as noted by recent polls) and a realization by Americans that maybe this was not the best path to take. Like I noted before somewhere, if the mid-term election polls show a marked decline in those voting for GOP candidates you will see a very significant drop-off in troop levels over the summer of 2006, regardless of practicality...

yep no matter how you want to spin it.

FACT is the PRO War lunatics had LESS than 150 people TOTAL and probably 1/2 of those they brought with them. That is FACT.

I was IN a massive crowd on Saturday, to me was easily 500,000 as it was every bit as large as any Mardi Gras I have attended at minimum, so I know for a FACT the crowd was much larger than any 150K by a long shot, 150K crowd would have barely covered the Ellipse with a sparse amount mulling in the street for a block or so.
at 1-2PM the Ellipse was jam packed, so were the streets along the route for 3 MILES sidewalk to sidewalk, how do I know this? because we had several people in our group separated and contacting each other with cell phones so we could meet back up, so I know what it looked like on 17th, 15th, 14th, Penn, Constitution, etc the March was solid shoulder to shoulder in a continuous stream for 5 hours, that is one hell of a lot more than 150K.

Your Cognitive Dissonance wont allow you to accept these FACTS of LESS than 150 people showed for the ignorant Pro War loons while even in your wildly deflated figure of 150,000 showed for the Anti-War side.
There were 3X as many Anti War people "Arrested" on Monday (350) than there were that showed up in total for the Pro War idiots...LOL

Try to deny that only 150 showed up for the Bush rally, ga head, I need a good laugh.
Can freeze the screen and actually COUNT them all yourself ROTFL, oh and feel free to count all the camera people and everyone on stage.

Meanwhile a HUGE Anti War rally happened on Saturday, you say 150K, (you weren't there) I say 500K+ (I was there, and have been in such crowds several times for reference and had several people spread out with cell phones with cameras).

Like I said, your Cognitive Dissonance is showing, how embarrassing for you.

What a marvelous demonstration of fundamentalist wing trollery! I could hardly ask for better. Thread hijacking, distortional claims, straw men, red herrings, projectional delusionism, faith as evidence....who could ask for anything more? Oh, yeah, actual evidence. That was it. Reliable and verifiable objective evidence, checkable sourcing, instead of third-hand repetitions of non-existent sourcing and soaring sermons on people power.

Come on up the Intelligent Design thread, Nunya, so I can use you as an argument against! ROFLMAO.

nunyabiz, I think it's your disappointment that's showing. A long and carefully planned organizing effort by pro-war forces resulted in very little media coverage and no confirmed reports by any major media sources that the numbers attending the protest were especially substantial. In terms of the sort of evidence that would be useful for making a reliable estimate, you've got a pube's more than bupkus. If organizers had drawn many supporters, and were interested in accurately representing their numbers, surely they could find a handful of professionals skilled in estimation who are also anti-war, and would be willing, for free and for the cause, to collect the data and then give everyone an estimate that they could support using acceptable methods of estimation.

But do we have this? No. Because the chosen path is to simply claim that a bunch of people showed up, many more than what can be demonstrated with available evidence. Organizers had a vested interest in inflating the numbers beyond actual, and that's what they did.

I challenge the anti-war protestors and in general, those on the left. In your protest organizing plans, start including plans for the collection of verifiable data for crowd estimation purposes. Until this starts happening, I feel pretty good assuming the highest claims are propagandistic lies.

It's a shame that so many partisans on both sides are willing to go on and on half-cocked about this. It shouldn't take a lot of will or a lot of resources to come up with a reasonably ranged estimate. Ground counters strategically placed with cameras and clickers, and video footage from a few helicopters. That such efforts don't occur suggests to me that neither partisan wing has interest in the truth, only in the war of words.

I couldn't be happier thank you.

Im thinking the next rally should be held surrounding CNN however with 300K+ people not letting them inside until they show WHY there is no news on the air.

So how many were at the PRO-War rally?

Oh yeah that's right 150...LOL ROTFL talk about "disappointment" LOL

What do you mean no evidence? the whole ProWar rally was on CSPAN start to finish was hilarious.

Yeah this is just a few thousand people, ROTFL.

Get a grip on reality.

http://win20ca.audiovideoweb.com/ca20win15004/DCMARCH2005512K.wmv

25-30 abreast non-stop just like this for about 5 hours is obviously to anyone with 2 braincells to rub together a lot more than 150K.

http://win20ca.audiovideoweb.com/ca20win15004/march512K.wmv

There were bus loads of people there from every state.

Meanwhile how many were at that PRO-War rally again? Oh yeah ONE busload LOL

Here ya go count them.

rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/iraq/iraq092505_honorrally.rm?mode=compact

I think the question that should be asked is WHY the Mainstream media flatly refuses to cover 100s of 1000s of people marching on Washington DC, yet covers something as ridiculous as the Shaivo case ad nauseam.
We have a Lame Duck idiot in the Whitehouse that is a total failure, his poll numbers are in the 30s and falling, he LIES continuously, so what exactly is it going to take?

LMAO. Wow, whole busloads, Nunya?!? Why, with a mere 10 thousand buses, you could reach that mythical number you want everyone to believe! And I love the "reliable and verifiable" sourcing! A far left indy filmmaker trying to use bad camera cuts to hide the empty space. Do go watch the TRUTHOUT shorts if you like, folks, and note the lack of crowd density in all scenes except that for the head of the march. It's hilarious.

I saw absolutely nothing on those two clips that shows anything like the 500K you delusionally claim, Nunya--or even the 100K of the original estimate. I did see clips similar to what I saw on C-Span Saturday, where a chatterhead propagandist makes wild or undefined claims about massive turnout that are clearly contradicted by the empty space in the background. You continue to demonstrate your own delusional inability to grasp reality or objectivity, which is, I suppose, quite understandable in the Religious Fundamentalist garden variety troll.

Ask for evidence, get more propaganda and babblerant. If Nunya's what passes for intelligence on the left, I can understand why they're in trouble.

another video showing how massive the crowd was.

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/Video/peace_rally1.mov

http://www.ameratsu.com/media/vid/indy/dk_dc_peace_rally1_050924a.wmv

This many abreast for a continous 3.5 miles plus still crowds at the Ellipse when the front of march hit the end 4+ hours later gives a very conservative estimate of 300,000+.

ROTFL I notice how you keep on spewing your BS about not trusting what is clearly in front of your face while not even making a single comment on the paultry LESS than 150 Pro War idiots.

ROTFL

You have been OWNED with evidence, cya losers later.

HAHAHAAHAhhhhhAaa LOL

How many were at the Pro War rally? Eh? cant hear ya.
LOL

Oh and why may I ask is this called a "Centrist" blog when you are obviously Far Reich Wing?

this about sums it up

http://www.buzzflash.com/bradenton/05/09/images/26bradenton.jpg

Yep that "liberal media"

Well, nunya, what you lack in verifiable evidence, you sure make up for in sheer volume of posts, 6 of the last 7. Well done.

If only about 150 people showed up for a last-minute pro-war counter protest, I'm fine with that. If there were 150, then were 150. Cool. It sure doesn't trouble me, since I don't think it means what you seem to think it means. Here's the thing: if those who supported the war had genuine reason to believe that hundreds of thousands of actively marching anti-war protesters existed and were growing in strength and genuinely poised to make the war effort a failure, they'd show up. We'd likely see equal numbers of each, since this is what polls seem to indicate, very roughly a fat third or so on each side, and about 20% wafflers in the middle.

But war supporters generally believe, based on what they've seen, that the protesters numbers are few, and they are composed mostly of a lunatic fringe. War supporters didn't show up because they don't really have anything to protest about, except the protestors. And that's a small number. I support the war, so I don't need to protest that. And I also support the right of protesters to act on their consciences and protest if they want to.

YMMV, but it seems to me based on what I see, hear, and read, that the numbers of Americans who is deeply dissatisfied by the war and driven to protest continues to be very small. You can keep yelling at me and the rest of us here that it isn''t so, but we haven't seen or heard anything reliable and trustworthy that shows us otherwise. All I see is occasonal small groups led by sad, aging, disheveled, agitated leftists, surrounded by masses of people doing their best to ignore the protestors and go about their business.

Unenlightened self-interest as manifested by career pursuit, consumer goods, and the general pursuit of material goods, THAT'S the opiate of the American masses these days. You leftists don't have an effing prayer. Wake up and smell the Starbucks, Ivan. It's a little pricey, but you can sit areound with your buddies and read literature from the first half of last century and reminisce about the glory days.

And i admit that the last paragraph is a semi-baseless rant, andunkind and uncharitable knife, but one that somehow had to be wielded.

That extreme right-winger David Corn nailed it three years ago.

The anti-war movement won’t have a chance of applying pressure on the political system unless it becomes much larger and able to squeeze elected officials at home and in Washington. To reach that stage, the new peace movement will need the involvement of labor unions and churches. That’s where the troops are — in the pews, in the union halls. How probable is it, though, that mainstream churches and unions will join a coalition led by the we-love-North-Korea set? Moreover, is it appropriate for groups and churches that care about human rights and worker rights abroad and at home to make common cause with those who champion socialist tyrants?

Until the anti-war movement can shed the baggage of the anti-American factions that sponsor the rallies and control the speakers and set the public rhetorical agenda, there's not going to be much mainstream traction there.

There was nothing "Anti-American" in any shape form nor fashion on the Anti War side.
Everyone was there in the 100s of 1000s BECAUSE they are American and sick & tired of this abhorrent administration of lying thieves that have stolen the Whitehouse.
We have had it with the rest of the entire planet hating this country and by default US because of the illegal actions of a very few.
Dubya has done WAY more than enough to have been Impeached 3-5X over AND convicted, the lying bastage should be in jail right now.
So should Delay/Rumsfeld/Rice/Rove/Powell/Feith/Cheney, just to name a few.

This is BY FAR the most crooked, secretive, disgusting, administration in American history, no other even comes close.

http://www.thefourreasons.org/impeachbush.htm

http://207.44.245.159/index.html

What just happened in DC this last weekend could not possibly have been MORE AMERICAN & Patriotic.
What IS un-American is being fine with a War Criminal & Pathological liar as President leading an administration that makes the Mafia look like boy scouts

Well, we don't believe your estimate of hundreds of thousands, and we don't see the mainstream traction and movement growth that you are implying is happening.

But maybe you are right, maybe it is there after all. If so, we should find out over the coming months. If it emerges with evidence, with ever-burgeoning crowds of protestors, we'll be happy to acknowledge it as a verifible truth, even if we don't view it as a positive trend. We're funny that way.

But if instead we see a sustaining of a stasis of no more than 20-100k at the biggest rallies and many of them mustering far fewer supporters, then we'll know that you are full of crap.

Tully and I will stay tuned, we promise! We're funny that way too. We like to let our visitors establish well-deserved reputations.

There was nothing "Anti-American" in any shape form nor fashion on the Anti War side...What just happened in DC this last weekend could not possibly have been MORE AMERICAN & Patriotic.

The very first speaker (Peta Lindsey, one of ANSWER's coordinators) called for support for the "Iraqi Resistance." Lessee, those would be the folks killing American and Iraqi troops and slaughtering Iraqi civilians with car bombs. Other speakers praised the "Freedom Fighters" of Iraq. Those would be the car-bombing AQ and Baathists who also drag elementary school teachers out of their classrooms and execute them, no? Mother Sheehan also praised the "Freedom Fighters" who are coming into Iraq from other countries...I mean, how much more American and patriotic can you possibly get than cheering on the people who killed your American soldier son?

Maybe rally organizer and speaker Leslie Cagan of UFPJ could explain the logic. She's only spent thirty-plus years as a Communist Party member praising the Soviet Union, Kim Jong Il, and Fidel Castro as the upstanding patriotic Americans that we know them to be. Hugo Chavez also made her love list this year. And she was the moderate speaker.

I saw dozens and dozens of flags being carried. That's patriotic, right? Except so few of them were American flags, aside from the ones draped over the faux coffins. The American flags were greatly outnumbered by the red marching banners of the assorted communist/socialist factions, the hammer and sickle, the Palestinian flag, the Saddam Iraq flag, the Vietnamese flag....most of the US flags I saw from the route photos were being worn as articles of clothing, or had been defaced with political messages, some of them scatalogical and obscene.

Nope, nothing anti-American or unpatriotic going on in the "peace" movement. Nothing at all. No radical anti-American socialist lefties promoting other agendas. Nope nope. Just the organizers and the speakers.

Biggest TERRORIST on the face of the planet is your Lord and Savior George Dubya Christ.

I saw nothing but patriotic Americans on Saturday, 100s of 1000s of them.

Thereby demonstrating a pressing need for optometric services on your part. But if it's something uncorrectably congenital, we're willing to take up a collection for the cane.