Relying on International ANSWER’s numbers, Reuters is reporting that the anti-war protests today in DC drew 100K people, though an aerial photograph seems to shows fewer people [see caption].
Then there’s this:
The 2005 National Book Festival, organized and sponsored by the Library of Congress and hosted by first lady Laura Bush, will be held on Saturday, Sept. 24, 2005, on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., between 7th and 14th streets from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. (rain or shine). The festival is free and open to the public.
[My emphasis] As Thirdfinger notes in the comments to my earlier post, the estimated attendance number for last year’s National Book Festival was 80,000, and in 2003, attendance is listed at 70K (thanks TimP).
Could it be that Reuters, AP, and others are massaging the protest numbers by including those who came for the National Book Festival? I honestly don’t know. But if attendance numbers for this event over the last two years are any indication, then the actual number of protesters is more likely in the 20-30K range (if indeed the 100K total estimate is correct).
But then, that would suggest Reuters is trying to slip one by us. And I just can’t bring myself to believe such a thing…
****
More here (check the update)
****
Charles posts a few more pics, courtesy EU Rota.
****
update: Baldilocks made her way through the swarms in LA and brought back some pics of her own.
Could it be that Reuters, AP, and others are massaging the protest numbers by including those who came for the National Book Festival?
Nah. Y’think?
Also of interest: the vast numbers of protesters in Rome:
“In Rome, dozens of protesters held up banners and peace flags outside the U.S. Embassy and covered a sidewalk with messages and flowers in honor of those killed in Iraq.”
In AP speak, does that mean one guy road by on a vespa and made a rude gesture?
You know, if you take those 30 guys who were with Cindy Sheehan and march them around the block over and over all day, past the AP reporter, you can get to 100,000 in a little over 5 hours.
Jeff, thanks again for the links. I took the fight over to Mahablog and exposed her cherry-picked numbers. I got banned.
How surprising is that?
protein wisdom ? Maybe AP can’t count …
By the picture, it looks to be about 20 – 30,000 people – not a lot for the stink they’ve been making. I went to the original ‘Nam march on Washington, which makes this little gathering look like the circle jerk that it was.
And I would think anyone in their right mind at the book fair would have been long gone by the time the moonbats reached a critical mass of, say, two hundred or so…
Pathetic.
But was it their INTENT? because we all know that’s all that matters.
Check it out! Washington Post takes estimate at 150,000 to 200,000
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092400852_pf.html
Can you say Bulllll Shit!
Jeff, I am pretty sure the street on the right side if these pics is 15th so the book fair would be east of that by a block and out of this pic.
Nevertheless, the Reuters/ANSWER nums are estimates, and in all likelyhood not even close to accurate.
Rob
when i was watching the CSPAN coverage this AM, i thought it was really strange that you never saw protesters massing around the stage and the speakers before starting off on the march. All you saw was a narrow band of protesters inside and outer ring of clots of media mecha. If the organizers were leveraging off of some other, unrelated event for street traffic, it begins to make much more sense.
Dennis, I wouldn’t trust the MSM to tell me the sun was coming up in the East without a picture. Where, oh where, are the pictures, crowd shots? Google for pics of other marches and see what crowds look like. The *only* picture I’ve found of any part of the rally/march that shows any appreciable numbers is the one we’re discussing. If there are more than 35,000 there, I’ll eat you hat.
Do you think that if there was a picture of more people it would be shown by some of the MSM?
Pathetic, just pathetic.
tw: labor. Boy, after reading the spin on the size of the crowd I really understand the old saying, “The mountain labored and brought forth a mouse.”
Wuzzadem hosts an interview between Wolf Blitzer and Jack Cafferty. Or is it parody? The legacy media has gone so far over the edge that it is getting hard to tell the difference.
ANSWER has been known to inflate the crowd count at their protests.
Bless the SF Chronicle—yes, the SF Chronicle—for hiring an aerial survery firm to fact check ANSWER’s *ss and embarass a lazy SFPD in the process. Imagine that, actual shoe-leather fact-checking journalism.
And never, but never, believe Reuters when they try to estimate crowd sizes, especially those of crowds whose worldview they share.
–furious
Could it be that ANSWER knew about the book convention and knew about its past attendance and then planned this weekend’s event accordingly? Just a thought.
Couldn’t the numbers be fake but accurate?
I also think this insistence on measuring crowd size, and having those measurements be correct, betrays a Western-European mindset.
Which, you know. That can’t be good.
5AM Update: The NYTimes headlines just came through and they say that “vast numbers” of protesters were in DC, and that “Organizers of the rally and march had a permit for 100,000 people, but the National Park Service no longer provides official estimates for large gatherings in Washington.”
If one were to assume that the Times was a disinterested source of actual news, one would, reading that, come to the conclusion that there were somewhere in the neighberhood of 100,000 people at the rally. Of course, the Times knows it was nothing of the sort–the permit is irrelevant and “vast numbers” could be 10,000, not 100,000.
You’ve got to hand it to them–they’re good at what they do. But it’s not news.
That picture is not some smoking gun, as it is only a snap of a gathering at the ellipse at one point in time. Notice the streams of protestors moving off to the left and the right of the picture on a street.
I stood on a side street and watched the protestors fill up the street on their march for about 10 minutes (until I got bored and took off). By my estimate, there were at least 30,000 protestors. I have no idea how close they got to 100k. By Washington standards, it was at least a relatively large protest, though not necessarily as big as its being portrayed. I don’t know, best estimates will come from the police.
To avoid any confusion, no, I do not think that it was 100k. But “tens of thousands” sounds about right.
100,000 losers all in one place? hummm
I’ve been looking into the protest in London Saturday and, as well as not being able to muster enough marchers to fill a bath, it appears the only parents of soldiers willing to speak out against the war didn’t even lose their kids in Iraq. Pathetic.
According to the father of my sister’s boyfriend, who works for the DCPD, the “unofficial” estimate by police is 20,000.
Somebody over at Kos is claiming 500,000. Hey, math is hard!
This really is a war of information and disinformation. I feel like we’re living back in the 30s or something. They’re all such lying bags…
“Relying on International ANSWER’s numbers, Reuters is reporting that the anti-war protests today in DC drew 100K people, though an aerial photograph seems to shows fewer people [see caption]. “
ANSWER was saying 2 to 3 hundred. The DC police chief said 100K. I’ll bet hes a commie huh?
I was there.
It was exactly one-gillizillion.
You neoconchickenhaws can dispute my numbers all you want (just like the fake WMDs).
Anybody who ain’t pro-killing of the A-rabs is a COMMIE, Actus.
Where’s my spray paint? Gonna find me a A-rab-owed convenience store and vandalize it, break me some A-rab windows and paint “Towel-head” all over the goddamned A-rab place, Jesus be praised!
Oh. This is interesting, though.
“Oh. This is interesting, though.”
Nice picture of the mall when there is a gathering arriving at the ellipse in the background.
Its not like Chief Ramsey looked at a few pics. He was walking around.
I linked this article to our blog. I tried to pin the trackback, but was somehow rejected. Here is the link.
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2005/09/cindy_sheehan_g.html