For major papers, 9-12 march -- but not Iraq war protest -- warranted front-page coverage
In their September 13 editions, several major newspapers gave coverage of a September 12 "March on Washington" by conservative activists more prominent placement than they had an October 26, 2002, protest in Washington, D.C., against the Iraq war -- which reportedly featured a similar or greater turnout. The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times featured articles about the September 12 protest on their front pages, after the Post had provided only a photo of the Iraq war protest on its front page while printing its article on C1 and the Times had provided its only coverage of the Iraq war protest on page A17; The New York Times and Houston Chronicle both put photos of the September 12 protests on their front pages after providing no front-page coverage of the 2002 Iraq war protest.
Major newspapers give 9-12 march better placement than 2002 anti-war protest
Wash. Post put article about 2009 conservative protest on paper's front page after largely relegating 2002 protest to Metro section. From page A1 of the September 13 edition of The Washington Post:
From page A1 of the October 27, 2002, edition of The Washington Post:
From page C1 of the October 27, 2002, edition of The Washington Post:
LA Times put 2009 protest on A1, 2002 protests on A17. From page A1 of the September 13 edition of the Los Angeles Times:
From page A1 of the October 27, 2002, edition of the Los Angeles Times:
From page A17 of the October 27, 2002, edition of the Los Angeles Times:
NY Times put photo of 2009 protest on front page but offered no front-page coverage of 2002 rally. From page 1 of the first section of the September 13 edition of The New York Times:
From page 1 of the first section of the October 27, 2002, edition of The New York Times:
From page 8 of the first section of the October 27, 2002, edition of The New York Times:
Houston Chronicle put photo of 2009 protest on front page but offered no front-page coverage of 2002 rally. From page A1 of the September 13 edition of the Houston Chronicle:
From page A1 of the October 27, 2002, edition of the Houston Chronicle:
From page A2 of the October 27, 2002, edition of the Houston Chronicle:
Reported turnout for 2002 protest was similar to or greater than reported turnout for 2009 rally
Turnout estimates for 2002 rally ranged up to 100,000. The Los Angeles Times reported that "[m]ore than 100,000 demonstrators" attended the 2002 Iraq war protest. The Post article -- a version of which the Chronicle ran in 2002 -- reported that the District of Columbia police chief said more people were at the October 26, 2002, rally than had attended a previous rally in which 75,000 participated:
Organizers with International ANSWER, a coalition of antiwar groups that coordinated the demonstration, had hoped for a turnout rivaling that of its pro-Palestine rally in April that officials estimated at about 75,000. Organizers said they easily eclipsed that figure yesterday, assessing attendance at well more than 100,000. D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey also said he figured yesterday's rally turnout exceeded that in April, but he didn't provide a specific number.
Turnout for 2009 rally estimated in tens of thousands by papers, PolitiFact, ABC. The Post, the Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times reported "tens of thousands" attended the 2009 protest. The Chronicle ran a version of The New York Times article in 2009. FoxNews.com also reported that "tens of thousands" attended. The website PolitiFact.com reported that "Pete Piringer, public affairs officer for the D.C. Fire and Emergency Department ... unofficially told one reporter that he thought between 60,000 and 75,000 people had shown up," and ABCNews.com reported that "approximately 60,000 to 70,000 people flooded Pennsylvania Ave, according to the Washington DC Fire Department."
Kate Conway is an intern with Media Matters for America.
Who would have ever guessed that the media was so liberally biased?
Don't let your average right-wing lunatic know... their still recuperating from the great time they had collectively making complete butt holes of themselves!!!
To the extent that there's a difference.
If you're told your media is liberally-biased, you won't question its conservative slant. It's a play toward the Independents, those smart enough to stay away from being brain-washed but too lazy to seek out some truth.
Largest anti-war demonstration since the Vietnam War and they give it similar coverage to a ZZ Top concert in Switzerland.
IMO, the reason this is front-page news is because the right wing noise machine is more than our press can bare and so they cave in to the conservatives.
No such fear factor exist for the Left Wing.
For some reason, I think that newspapers and other media outlets covered the march and gave it recognition to try and make them appear more credible to the fringe.
It all adds up to about 70,000 for Beck's little party, as opposed to 1.8 million for the inauguration.
If the attendance size equals success, then your side failed, just like last November. Claiming "victory" in the face of the evidence isn't bravado, it's utter foolishness.
If you can't be a good loser and admit the real size of the event and move on, then why should we ever take you seriously?
Prove it
Except that most of the crowd was over by the Capitol, not by the reflecting pool. There was no way to get a reasonable estimate from your vantage point.
I have not read what Magnolialover and epkklk said about their experiences,
Well, look them up. They provide photographs and also explain why (such as their ease of movement within) the crowds were simply not that big.
but I know what I saw. There were more than 100,000 in the march.
Well, it looks like you're giving up on the "photos prove it" claim, and are trusting to your eyesight, instead. In addition, you've gone from "well in excess of 100,000" and "very similar in size to the last Presidential Inauguration" (!) to the more modest "more than 100,000"; that's progress, at any rate. Still, I'll go with the official estimates and the other factors that indicate a 70,000 turnout, thanks.
I don't know how to look up Magnolialover and epkklk's posts. Were they replies to a previous story? I would like to read what they have to say, and see the pictures they have.
I'm certain there were more than 100,000 people at the march. I have no idea how many people were at the Inauguration, but there were a very similar number at the 9/12 march. If the 1.8 million number at the Inauguration is accurate, then the number of people in the march exceeded 1 million. (I doubt the 1.8 million number, it's hard for me to believe 1 in 200 Americans would have been able to gather in one spot at one time.)
Yes, they were, in the photographs of the actual event.
The Capitol lawn was completely full, and most of the crowd overflowed around the pool, and back through the Mall... A mass of people as far as I could see in every direction.
Any evidence of this at all?
I don't know how to look up Magnolialover and epkklk's posts. Were they replies to a previous story? I would like to read what they have to say, and see the pictures they have.
There have already been many stories about the grossly inflated numbers. By all means read them, and you will find their reports, with links to their photos.
I'm certain there were more than 100,000 people at the march. I have no idea how many people were at the Inauguration, but there were a very similar number at the 9/12 march.
If you have "no idea how many people were at the Inauguration," how can you be so certain that it was a similar number to the 9/12 activities? You were already asking us to accept your ipse dixit; now you're losing your grasp of logic entirely.
If the 1.8 million number at the Inauguration is accurate, then the number of people in the march exceeded 1 million.
Because you think the two events were similar in size, based on what again? Your own say so. You need more than that.
(I doubt the 1.8 million number, it's hard for me to believe 1 in 200 Americans would have been able to gather in one spot at one time.)
Don't take such pride in your ignorance. It's a matter of public record that the turnout for the inauguration was indeed that large, and there are innumerable photos and videos to prove it. You have been given ample opportunity to find some kind of proof for your claim; indeed, everyone has, but it hasn't shown up yet, because it simply isn't there.
The number stands at around 70,000, or roughly 1/3 of what Beck himself said would be considered a success.
Really where are these official reports?
For that matter where are the official reports for the inauguration?
I think you have been bamboozled. That picture is from an old Promise Keepers rally. You can probably see Senator Ensign hitting on his best friend's wife if you look close enough or was that later?
If this is not the picture you are referring to, please post the ones you have seen. Should be interesting.
100,000 people show up to protest Bush's upcoming boondoggle war for profit and it's just a footnote.
I think the 4,300 dead soldiers and marines and 1,000,000 dead Iraqis would have a bone to pick with the imbalance of that coverage, if they weren't dead.
Randy
WTF do you call that!
Mr. News