Apparently there was a big protest rally in Washington DC on 12 September. The theme was opposition to big government, higher taxes, irresponsible spending, etc.
I knew nothing about it because as far as I can determine, it was not reported by the MSM.
Actively looking for news about this event found only British sources. Glenn Reynolds thought this was strange too, asking "Why is the British press more honest in its reporting on this stuff than the American press?". Glenn also relates this:
Meanwhile, a reader emails: “I’ll tell you what I find impressive. I’m watching the Fox news video about 15 minutes after the end of the event. The crowd has thinned out enough that you can see the ground and there is not a speck of trash on the grass. Absolutely clean. To contrast, google ‘pictures of litter on the mall after the inauguration.’”
Googling to find news about this event revealed mainly controversy over the size of the crowd. Various MSM outlets reported that a photo claimed to be of the demonstration was a fake. I have no idea if the specific photo was a fake, but it looked compatible with numerous other photos of the event that were not fake as well as a You Tube video (from Fox I think) showing the size of the crowd. (The one photo in question definitely was not of the 9/12 event, however, as recent DC landmarks dated it to before 2004.)
I did find one short op-ed column from the Chicago Tribune, where the writer estimated the crowd as 50-60 thousand (look at the video and the pictures and form your own opinions on that) and said "So What. It doesn't mean a thing."
I don't know where this is going but I do think the MSM is haemorrhaging credibility at an unsustainable rate.
6 comments:
From what I've heard, the organizers and some of the "reporters" didn't do them any favors by turning the story into How Many People Less Than A Million By A Long Shot Were Actually There.
I mean, even if highly organized, and there are signs that it was, getting 50-60,000 people together is a big deal. But at 1/20th of a million, mis-reporting the size weakens any argument you might be trying to make.
Just sayin'. Not even commenting on the politics of it.
Dr. Phil
From pictures I would say several hundred thousand, not 50-60K. 60K is the number of people in most large football stadia. Comparing that scale to the number of people in the pictures suggests at least 5 times that many. The number of people there is apparently a big political issue, which I can understand. The true test will be the 2010 elections.
As someone at the Chicago Boyz pointed out, whatever the numbers, this was significant because these were people with jobs. Not students, not dropped out fringe leftists with minimum wage lifestyles, not the professional protesting class that dogs every G7 summit.
This was a huge middle class and middle aged swell, perhaps the largest ever, since much of the Civil Rights crowds were poor blacks.
As such it was important, and the MSM showed its bias once again.
I am curious as to why the DCFD numbers are considered to be biased. Isn't it their job to determine such things?
And wasn't there a "faked" picture of some sort that further damaged the organizer's credibility?
Janiece I don't know how much time you've spent in DC, but the idea that the DC Fire Department, or any other DC public institution, would be either competent or objective is not one that would be seriously considered by anyone who lives there.
CW, until very recently (like two weeks ago), I had never even been to DC, let alone lived there. That's why I asked the question.
And while I do agree that the MSM may be biased in their coverage (as is Fox News at the other end of the spectrum), the credibility of the organizers is more than a bit questionable on this issue.
Post a Comment