The hilarious game of conservative telephone continues
September 16, 2009 2:37 pm ET by Ben Dimiero
Yesterday, Glenn Beck cited an unnamed university estimating the crowd size at the 9/12 protest as "1.7 million." Considering Beck and other conservatives have so far relied on invented ABC reports, repurposed quotes about Obama's inauguration, and "I heard someone say," we assumed Beck was just grasping at straws.
Turns out we were wrong. From his radio program this morning:
What "University of Indiana" study is Beck talking about? We have no clue. And clearly, neither does Beck. Here's Beck, appearing on Fox News' On the Record on Monday night:
BECK: I think that it doesn't matter if any newspaper published how many people were there. We had, where was it, University of Illinois, I think, did a -- you know, a spatial count and looked at the photos and said I think it was 1.7 million people there.
University Of Illinois, Indiana University, hey, what's the difference? There does appear to be a crowd-size expert at the University of Illinois named Clark McPhail, who was quoted extensively about the size of the crowd at Obama's inauguration, but a Nexis and Google search reveals that McPhail hasn't yet said anything about the 9/12 crowds. As we learned yesterday, the conservative media thinks it is totally reasonable to take quotes about the inauguration and apply them to the 9/12 march. However, over the last 48 hours, Beck has progressed from University of Illinois, to a complete memory wipe, to today referencing some purported Indiana University study twice. We'll try to keep up and have a look at what Beck might be talking about.
The closest thing to an Indiana University study appears to be this paper, "The Real Number of Protesters at the 9/12 Washington D.C. March," by the esteemed Zac Moilanen. Who exactly is Zac Moilanen? Noted Statistician? Professor Emeritus of Political Science?
Close. According to his "Cadet Profile" as posted on the web page for the university's ROTC program, Moilanen is an undergrad majoring in East Asian Languages and Cultures. Um, OK. Maybe he is a crowd-size scholar? After all, according to Beck, he even did "the computer thing!"
If by "the computer thing," Beck means this paper was written on one, then yes, that certainly appears to be the case. If he meant "advanced computer modeling," then, uh, no. You can read the in-depth analysis yourself, but let me just take you to the exciting conclusion:
In all precise studies of crowds, it is important to subtract "a hundred thousand or two" for old people being distracted by statues, etc.
Some of the references cited in this bulletproof academic study: Michelle Malkin, WorldNetDaily, Google Maps, YouTube, an article titled "President Hussein's 2012 Resignation: A historical prediction" from Free Republic, and a message board on a website called "Godlike Productions."
At this point, I'm starting to wonder if Beck is just throwing out red herrings to keep me occupied.
Charles Johnson, in response to conservatives repurposing a quote about the inauguration to claim it was about the 9/12 protests wrote: "This is so pathetic I don't know whether to laugh or cry."
I think I'm ready for both.
Oh, sorry, I distracted by a statue.
This comment in the blog post made me literally laugh out loud:
Go Hoosiers!
First off, his grammar is not the best. Secondly, right after he asserts that it wasn't a Republican or Conservative event, he says he won't argue that point, and says that he wants to stick to facts (hint to the student - opinions are not the same as facts)
Then he proceeds to give us his opinion on the number of people in the crowd based upon his opinion of how to figure that out. But first he has to argue the point again that he said he wasn't going to argue, that the event wasn't a right wing event! And then he says again that he's not 'here' to try to convince us about who attended this event, right after he goes through a list of people he says attended the event who aren't necessarily right wing! Amazing.
And then the student's work on figuring out how many people attended is really suspect and his conclusions entirely without basis, but Glenn Beck used him as a resource. How did I know that his conclusions wouldn't be based upon reality?
He attended the event, so not a non-partisan judge.
He mistakenly suggests that people simply standing, waiting for the Obama Inauguration, take up as much space as people marching up the street, trying to not walk on the back of someone else's heels or hit them with their sign.
I think that those of you who have issues with Glenn Beck ought to refrain from further comments. After all, let's consider the circumstances of this man's life. According to Wikipedia, Glenn Beck's mother and brother both committed suicide. Beck also acknowledges that he is an alcoholic and drug abuser (a fact which led to a failed marriage). Considering the family history, it only stands to reason that Glenn Beck may have congenital mental issues. That is to say, he may be susceptible to deviant behavior. I don't think we should continue to take issue with him as we certainly wouldn't wish to contribute to his suicide or actively seeking relief in alcohol and drugs, now do we?
But that's not the case. Glenn Beck is not only misinforming those who don't know any better, but he's evoking from his audience the worst in human nature, reinforcing the attitude of some that our president is evil and worthy of hatred - and possibly violence - all on a national level. He pollutes the national political discourse and is a detriment to the process of molding informed public opinion based on it.
Empathy is not a bad thing, but how one acts on it is key. Beck needs help, but doesn't deserve to continue his detrimental activities at the expense of society.
According to my scientific method and analysis, there were approximately 57 people at the 912 event, with a standard deviation of no more than 10, and a sigma of 1.154. I made no adjustments for those army men who were holding rifles which had bent barrels, because I determined that the number of actual 912 attendees without guns was insignificant.
I think this is probably the most realistic and scientfically accurate estimate of 912 crowd size ever done.
Frankly, I doubt Mr. Moilanen gives a donkey what you think of him since his analysis is detailed and as scientific as crowd estimates get.
Furthermore, I was there the entire day. I saw the massive crowd that was still arriving even after 3:00 pm. Got that MM? The crowd was still growing in size even late in the day.
1.7 million is actually a conservative number analysis.
http://otakurevolution.com/content/9-12-dc-tea-bag-protest-debunking-moilanen-and-creating-an-estimate
The numbers are a lot closer to the Fire Department's estimates, even if there is a large margin of error.
I'm not defending the paper, I'm just pointing out the flaw in your criticism of it.
This kid, who attended the event but tried to pretend that he was not trying to push the political agenda of the event or argue who attended the event, then proceeded to do exactly those things, has no idea how to estimate crowds.
He then compared numbers of people standing, waiting for the Inauguration, to people marching. Marchers need much more space than people just standing to avoid hitting one another, so counting people in front of the Capitol and directly comparing that number to the people in the roadway is inaccurate.
The other thing that no one's pointed out is that that YouTube video was posted by an obviously conservative fellow, and we have nothing but his word that it's accurate.
Anyways, pass this link around, get the word out: http://j.mp/912turnout