It's like Malkin just totally forgot, y'know:
12:34pm Eastern: Police estimate 1.2 million in attendance. ABC News reporting crowd at 2 million.
Teeny, tiny fringe, huh?
Yep, Malkin claims ABC is reporting 2 million, but Malkin can't find the link to the ABC report. Funny, neither can anybody else. What I did find at ABCnews.com was an AP report which claimed "tens of thousands" of protesters are marching today. I don't know, in the right-wing blogosphere does "tens of thousands" now translate into "2 million"?
Also, love Malkin's unsubstantiated claim that D.C. police estimated the crowd at 1.2 million. Again, no link or specific sourcing. It's weird, it's almost like Malkin is trying to deceive people. (Psst, I heard from a-friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend that ABC News is reporting crowd at 9 million. Think Malkin will post it?)
UPDATED: if you poke around the GOP sections of the Internet you'll discover that that nifty 1.2 million number is "unconfirmed." Shocking, I know.
UPDATED: ABC News confirms it never reported the 2 million number. Says it's "a total myth." Anxiously waiting for Malkin to explain the extra-large blunder.
UPDATED: It's like the blind leading the blind with these wingnuts. Complete (purposeful?) incompetence.
From a September 12 Washington Times article:
Not unless newspaper editors are going to create a brand new standard for covering large, D.C. political protests. Not unless for the mainstream media, angry conservative activists are more important than angry liberal ones.
Who knows how many mini-mob members are going to show up in the nation's capitol this weekend for the Glenn Beck/Dick Armey "grassroots" protest. But even if they defy expectations and 100,000-plus Obama haters show up, based on previous treatment of mass rallies in D.C., and Post and the Times must, in the name of consistency, keep the rallies off the front page.
Why? Because during the run-up to the Iraq War, mass gathering of liberal peace protesters were routinely kept off A1.
As I recently noted:
For instance, in October 2002, when more than 100,000 people gathered in Washington, D.C., to oppose the war, The Washington Post put the story not on the front page, but in the Metro section with, as the paper's ombudsman later lamented, "a couple of ho-hum photographs that captured the protest's fringe elements."
For that same 2002 anti-war rally, The New York Times also bungled its reporting. The day after the event, the newspaper published a small article on Page 8, which was accompanied by a photo that was larger than the article itself. And in the article, the Times falsely reported that "fewer people attended than organizers had said they hoped for."
In 2002, when more than 100,000 left-leaning activists took to the streets to protest the policies of a Republican White House, the event was quietly tucked inside the newspapers. For the 9/12 protest, we'll see if editors at the Post and Times maintain the same blasé approach.
It's bad enough that CNN collectively smeared egg all over its face yesterday by mistakenly posting as breaking news that the Coast Guard, on the anniversary of 9/11, had opened fire on a vessel along the Potomac River in the nation's capitol. But for CNN to then defend its irresponsible actions is pretty amazing, and depressing, to watch. So much for accountability. But then again, CNN did sponsor this year's birther crusade, so this sad episode shouldn't be all that surprising.
Of course, CNN bungled yesterday after it overheard Coast Guard radio chatter as personnel acted out a training mission in which they simulated firing on a vessel. (i.e. "Bang, bang, bang. We have expended ten rounds, the vessel is operating at stern.") CNN, confusing the drill with real life, contacted the Coast Guard which told the network it knew nothing about any shots being fired on the Potomac. CNN then went ahead and aired the breaking news anyway.
Most news consumer may not know this, but airing reports based solely on radio transmission is pretty much verboten in newsrooms. Reporters have used emergency and police radio or scanners for decades to pick up news tips. But to take raw radio transmissions--to take that chatter--and turn them into news without the slightest bit of independent confirmation? That's a huge no-no.
Yet here was CNN's official response to yesterday gigantic blunder [emphasis added]
After hearing a further radio transmission about 10 rounds being expended, and after reviewing video of rapid movement by Coast Guard vessels as the President's motorcade crossed the Memorial Bridge, CNN reported the story. Simultaneously, during a second phone call, the Coast Guard spokeswoman informed us that its National Command Center and other command posts knew nothing about any activity in the area.
Given the circumstances, it would have been irresponsible not to report on what we were hearing and seeing. As with any breaking news story, information is often fluid and CNN updated the story with the official explanation from the Coast Guard as soon as it was provided.
What did CNN see yesterday that convinced the staff big news was breaking? it saw rapid movement by Coast Guard vessels. Oh brother.
And is it just me, but didn't CNN get it exactly backward when it claimed that "given the circumstances" (i.e. the anniversary of 9/11), that it would have been irresponsible not to air its (leaky) exclusive? Meaning, wasn't it precisely because it was on 9/11, on a day when dark memories of terrorist attacks were fresh in Americans' minds, that CNN should have been extra sensitive about airing a report it clearly did not have a handle on, rather than contributing to a news sense of panic?
Mistakes happen all the time in newsrooms. And especially newsroom that try to break news. But when mistakes are made, like CNN's whopper yesterday, professionals need to own up to their blunders and learn from them. Not only didn't CNN admit its errors, but based on its statement it would do the exact same thing again.
UPDATED: From a CF reader comment:
So what CNN is saying that had they been around in 1938 when the Mercury theater did "The War of The Worlds" on the radio, they would have reported we were being invaded by aliens from another planet.
More than 60 advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Here are his September 11 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
From the Fox Nation, posted September 11:
So, that Glenn Beck publicity stunt CNN plans to cover? Starting to look like it might be falling apart.
A few weeks ago, FreedomWorks suggested "hundreds of thousands" of people would attend the rally. Organizers said it could be "the largest gathering of fiscal conservatives ever." More excited organizers predicted millions of attendees.
But now, with the big day just hours away, organizers are frantically trying to lower expectations. Politico's Glenn Thrush reports:
Adam Brandon, the press guy for Beck rally organizer FreedomWorks, tells my colleague Alex Isenstadt he expects the crowd to be in the 20-30,000 range.
30,000? Down from predictions of "hundreds of thousands" -- and even millions?
If tomorrow's crowds really are as small as Brandon is now predicting, those CNN reports better involve frequent use of the word "flop."
On March 13, 2009, Glenn Beck rolled out his "9-12 Project" in a special featuring Chuck Norris, various "survivors," and numerous moments of Beck openly crying about how much he loved his country. In describing the project, Beck stated, "We weren't told how to behave that day after 9-11, we just knew. It was right; it was the opposite of what we feel today." And with tears flowing down his cheeks, Beck asked, "Are you ready to be the person you were that day after 9-11, on 9-12?"
Of course, most observers -- The New York Times not among them -- recognized Beck's 9-12 Project as a shameless shtick exploiting a terrible tragedy. Indeed, Stephen Colbert offered up the best evidence of Beck's phoniness, airing a tape of him back in 2005 savaging the families of victims of 9-11:
BECK: You know, it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims' families. ... I don't hate all of them. I hate about, probably about 10 of them. But when I see, you know, 9-11 victim family, on television, or whatever, I'm just like, "Oh, shut up." I'm so sick of them, because they're always complaining. And we did our best for them.
Colbert shrewdly noted that Beck's "9-12 Project is not for families directly affected by 9-11. Just people building their careers on it."
Beck concluded his 3-13 9-12 special by stating, "On Saturday, 9/12 -- Saturday, September 12, I will share with you what I've been working on to put the principles and the values to work in my own life. And you show me what you have done. We'll meet back here in six months, all right?"
Well, it's six months later. Time to find out what all the fuss is about.
Turns out it's nothing more than another tea party protest in Washington, D.C.
Savetherich.com, a site devoted to "The Truth About the Fox News Tea Parties," has documented the origins of the September 12 march and traced it back to FreedomWorks -- on March 13, the same day as Beck's 9-12 special.
Brendan Steinhauser, the director of federal and state campaigns for FreedomWorks, posted: "If you are interested in building momentum for a massive march on Washington, let us know!" A month later, Steinhauser posted: "We have the permit for the West Front of the U.S. Capitol, 9-12-2009! Please spread the word, and we will post updates on our blog and in this space."
912dc.org lists FreedomWorks as its biggest sponsor, with American Taxpayers Union, FreeRepublic, and the American Conservative Union also listed as sponsors.
Meanwhile, Beck's the912project.com has been promoting the September 12 march on Washington but insists in several places that the project is not actually organizing the protests, even though they are working with organizers:
We are not the organizers of this march, but we are working with the great team to get you there! Sign up! See you there!
So they're not organizing, but they're working with organizers?
Beck's site links to an event management website that has a page with a logo proclaiming it to be a "Taxpayer March on DC" and containing event details. In addition, Beck's site provides contact information for transportation connections and encourages folks to attend: "You can watch TV any day. Washington needs to hear your voice."
On August 12, Beck described the march on Washington as a "9-12 Project": "There are 9-12 Projects and rallies happening all over. The biggest one seems to be in Washington, D.C., on September 12."
On August 28, Beck described the 9-12 march on Washington as something "worth standing up for" and told viewers, "I hope to see you in Washington. I will make sure you're seen all over the country."
And on September 1, an emotional Beck urged listeners to attend the march in D.C. because they "may be the only thing that stands between freedom and slavery."
Indeed, Beck and his project may claim they're not the organizers of the march, but they're sure doing a lot of organizing.
In addition, for weeks, Fox News has been promoting the Tea Party Express, a two-week national bus tour ending up in D.C. tomorrow. Fox News has been promoting the tour -- with live updates from Griff "Nerd Pencils" Jenkins -- despite the fact that the tour was organized by Our Country Deserves Better, a conservative PAC organized to oppose the Obama administration.
Tomorrow's agenda calls for a march down Pennsylvania Avenue ending with a protest on the west lawn of the Capitol at 1 p.m., which is exactly when Glenn Beck and Fox News will begin live broadcasting from the protest.
Haven't we already seen this not once, but twice, since Obama's election?
The Tax Day Tea Parties were heavily promoted by Fox News, with four of its anchors appearing at protests around the country. In the most disturbing of them, Beck stood in front of the Alamo alongside a guitar-wielding Ted Nugent and interviewed the guy who shot and killed two men he believed to be trespassers even after a 911 dispatcher asked him not to go outside. The crowd roared as he described shooting the undocumented immigrants.
The Fourth of July tea parties were a total flop, in part because of lukewarm promotion from Fox News, but most likely because nobody wanted to give up barbecuing, drinking beer, and shooting off fireworks to go protest.
But at least there was a reasonable rationale for holding tax protests on April 15 and, to a lesser extent, July 4.
What is the rationale for holding tax protests on September 12? So that we can remember how we all united against paying taxes the day after our nation's worst tragedy?
No, the protests are nothing more than the shameless and shameful exploitation of something that should be sacred to all. All thanks to Glenn Beck, the most shameless media huckster since Morton Downey Jr.
And Fox News is once again actively engaging in political advocacy against the Democratic Congress and the Obama administration. It has already proven that it is willing to take marching orders from Beck.
But Fox News won't be alone. On Friday's edition of American Morning, correspondent Ali Velshi said CNN plans to cover the rally.
So why is CNN covering Glenn Beck's baby?
Back on April 15, CNN's Susan Roesgen actually reported that the Tax Day protests were "highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox."
What has changed?
Why would CNN cover the 9-12 protests led by Mr. 9-12 himself?
Why is CNN giving Glenn Beck an even bigger mike?
A suggestion to CNN: On Saturday (and Sunday) another group will descend on the Mall for a positive cause. This weekend is the 24th annual Black Family Reunion Celebration, a "three-day cultural event celebrating the enduring strengths and traditional values of the African American family." How about reporting on African-Americans' views on taxes, health care, unemployment, etc? At least then you won't be merely echoing Fox News' coverage. After all, the tea party protesters have been given more than enough airtime on Fox News alone.
Or at the very least, send Roesgen to cover Beck's protest and call them what they are: a ratings gimmick.