Crowds and the media...

[headscratcher4]

Yesterday, took my daily walk where I live near Capitol Hill. Walked passed about 1000 (my guess) widely dispersed, very nasty Tea Party protestors...I say nasty because the obvious level of anger, and them yelling things like "******" at black congressmen going to and from their offices...not every one, of course, but a certainly vocal minority.

Anyway, listening to the news, they all mentioned the tea party protests, their anger and their visability in reporting on the run up to the house vote.

Today, in front of my house and down to the Capitol, there has been a steady stream of mostly Hispanic, but mixed crowed of immigration reform protestors. My guess...and it is only a guess...is that they are four to five times more than yesterday's teabaggers. THey are carrying American flags, marching peacefully, singing.

I wonder if they'll be a report of any merit in the national media? After all, they're not white patriots, but I'm guess (I hope I'm wrong) that Fox played up the teabaggers, bragging on their numbers yesterday, but this far larger crowd (in my estimation) will get any headlines or coverage at all.

It will be interesting to watch/listen and see.

[Peephole]

There was also an anti-war protest of about 2500 yesterday.

[headscratcher4]

I must admit that I didn't see any of the anti-war protestors yesterday...it doesn't mean they weren't there...just that the Teaparty loons were louder and more prominent when I walked by....on the other hand, you couldn't miss the immigration rally, unless you are the national media.

[corplinx]

I must admit that I didn't see any of the anti-war protestors yesterday...it doesn't mean they weren't there...just that the Teaparty loons were louder and more prominent when I walked by....on the other hand, you couldn't miss the immigration rally, unless you are the national media.

Unfortunately, the immigration people aren't part of the current 24/7 news cycle narrative.

It says a lot about the news, where only the news that fits the current story gets reported, but that seems to be the game.

If you tune into one news channel you get nonstop Haiti coverage, the other, Health Care.

[headscratcher4]

And, of course, the Teaparty people are screaming loudest (and a little bit of spitting), just now.

[The True Scotsman]

He who yells loudest yells last. Tell the immigration crowd to be crazier and yell louder, after all, that's what gets media attention. :p

[XBoxWarrior]

I was just watching a little FOX, while MSNBC was on commercial. Greta was interviewing Rick (Man on Dog) Santorum, and they were showing the crowd, (a far away from behind shot) but she said they were anti-HCR protesters...:confused:

Even with their distant shot, I could tell by the color of their signs, and the color of the people, that in fact, these were immigration protesters. Greta knows she is lying, because she is literally sitting outside the Capitol building for today's coverage.

MSNBC did interview a couple of the immigration rally speakers this morning, but this House vote today will trump all 'news'. Only planes flying into tall buildings would get them to break away from the House vote today. The immigration people just picked the wrong day, or they got a bad rap when Nancy picked the Lord's day for the vote...

FOX is still showing throngs of immigration marchers, with the caption reading, "Health Care Protesters".

Stay classy FOX.

[Dorian Gray]

I hate the term "anti-war protester", because it means you're for the war but is used in the exact opposite way. Think about it. "War protester" means your against the war, so "anti-war protester" means the exact opposite.

[Travis]

I hate the term "anti-war protester", because it means you're for the war but is used in the exact opposite way. Think about it. "War protester" means your against the war, so "anti-war protester" means the exact opposite.

After you get done with that battle can you get people to stop saying, "I don't know nothing," when they mean that they just, "don't know anything?"

[daredelvis]

After you get done with that battle can you get people to stop saying, "I don't know nothing," when they mean that they just, "don't know anything?"

Irregardless.

Daredelvis

[Travis]

Irregardless.

Daredelvis

For all intense purposes that is correct. Unless you have oldtimers disease.

[Ziggurat]

Yesterday, took my daily walk where I live near Capitol Hill. Walked passed about 1000 (my guess) widely dispersed, very nasty Tea Party protestors

Your crowd estimates don't match other reports. In fact, they don't even match what can be estimated from photos (http://static.ow.ly/photos/normal/N45.jpg) of the event, which indicate crowds well above 10,000.

...I say nasty because the obvious level of anger, and them yelling things like "******" at black congressmen going to and from their offices...

You presume the event in question actually happened. There is some doubt about that.

Anyway, listening to the news, they all mentioned the tea party protests, their anger and their visability in reporting on the run up to the house vote.

Of course they did. In case you haven't noticed, most of the media don't like the tea party protesters. Calling them "angry" is an easy way to paint them in a negative light. It's called a "narrative", and the press do it all the time.

My guess...and it is only a guess...is that they are four to five times more than yesterday's teabaggers.

Sorry, headscratcher, but your guess isn't worth anything.

[tyr_13]

Your crowd estimates don't match other reports. In fact, they don't even match what can be estimated from photos (http://static.ow.ly/photos/normal/N45.jpg) of the event, which indicate crowds well above 10,000.


That picture sure doesn't look like 10,000, let alone above 10,000.

[daredelvis]

My barber told me there was gunna be a million protesting Obamacare. Actually, he is the new barber that replaced my old barber who died a few months ago. Time for a new barber. I am afraid that I had the only barber in Houston that did not keep the TV tuned to Fox News.

Daredelvis

[Lurker]

For all intense purposes that is correct. Unless you have oldtimers disease.

Don't loose your mind.

[headscratcher4]

Your crowd estimates don't match other reports. In fact, they don't even match what can be estimated from photos (http://static.ow.ly/photos/normal/N45.jpg) of the event, which indicate crowds well above 10,000.



You presume the event in question actually happened. There is some doubt about that.



Of course they did. In case you haven't noticed, most of the media don't like the tea party protesters. Calling them "angry" is an easy way to paint them in a negative light. It's called a "narrative", and the press do it all the time.



Sorry, headscratcher, but your guess isn't worth anything.

Indeed, my guess is worth nothing...that's why I said it was a guess. However, living in the area, knowing the ground, if you're right and there were 10,000 teapartiers there on Saturday...quite possibly as 10,000 would not be terribly dense in and around the capitol building itself, than there were 30,000 immigration protestors. MY GUESS. There just seemed to be a lot more of them.

[Ziggurat]

That picture sure doesn't look like 10,000

On what basis do you say that? Gut feeling? Sorry, but your gut feelings simply aren't credible, and don't match even a basic analysis of the photo.

Why do I say it's probably above 10,000? Area. That patch of ground they're filling is 16,500 m2. To hit 10,000 people, you only need 0.6 people per m2. That would be a pretty thin crowd, given that the National Park Service uses about 1.8 people per m2 as a typical crowd density. Sure, the people are more concentrated towards the front than the back, but they're also probably much closer to 1.8 people than 0.6 people per m2 at the front. 10,000 people would be easy to get with a crowd like that.

Or hell, try counting. You'll find it's about 100 people across the front. A similar depth (which occurs about half-way to the back of that green) gives you a crowd size of 10,000 as well - not even counting that the crowd gets wider at the back.

[tyr_13]

On what basis do you say that? Gut feeling? Sorry, but your gut feelings simply aren't credible, and don't match even a basic analysis of the photo.

Who said gut feeling? Only you.


Why do I say it's probably above 10,000? Area. That patch of ground they're filling is 16,500 m2.

Got a cite for that? Besides, they aren't filling it. They are about half filling it, pushed up to the front, and get much thinner towards the back. It's hard to tell how far from that stand of trees in the back they are.


To hit 10,000 people, you only need 0.6 people per m2. That would be a pretty thin crowd, given that the National Park Service uses about 1.8 people per m2 as a typical crowd density. Sure, the people are more concentrated towards the front than the back, but they're also probably much closer to 1.8 people than 0.6 people per m2 at the front. 10,000 people would be easy to get with a crowd like that.

Or hell, try counting. You'll find it's about 100 people across the front. A similar depth (which occurs about half-way to the back of that green) gives you a crowd size of 10,000 as well - not even counting that the crowd gets wider at the back.

Perhaps you have a better photo to do that counting? I'm afraid I can't seem to count the front row well at all.

[Ziggurat]

Who said gut feeling? Only you.

Indeed. You didn't give any reason for your estimate. Care to give one now?

Got a cite for that?

Don't need one. You can calculate the area yourself using google maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Washington,+District+of+Columbia&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hl=en&cd=1&geocode=FQh-UQIdsoRo-w&split=0&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=23.875,57.630033&hq=&hnear=Washington,+District+of+Columbia&ll=38.889738,-77.011113&spn=0.007165,0.011061&t=h&z=17).

Besides, they aren't filling it.

I never said they were. If they were, the number would be closer to 30,000. As it is, though, I think 10,000 is probably a lower bound.

[funk de fino]

I never said they were.

Yes, you did

That patch of ground they're filling is 16,500 m2

[Ziggurat]

Yes, you did

Yes, I suppose I used "fill" inconsistently - in one case, to indicate the area which is densely occupied, in another to indicate simply the area bounding the crowd. But would you care to raise an objection that has any relevance to the number of people? Because this doesn't.

[funk de fino]

Yes, I suppose I used "fill" inconsistently - in one case, to indicate the area which is densely occupied, in another to indicate simply the area bounding the crowd. But would you care to raise an objection that has any relevance to the number of people? Because this doesn't.

No, just pointing out you told a porkie.

[INRM]

Are you suggesting that they're only showing the smaller protest that make the tea-baggers look bad, and ignoring the ones that are peaceful or larger?

[headscratcher4]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/gallery/2010/03/march-for-america-protesters-in-dc-demand-immigration-reform.php?img=2

I recognize that the above pictures are from a partisan source. However, they reflect what my wife and I saw on Sunday. There appeared to be far more than the teaparty people and they were all over the place...again, I'm no crowd county expert, but this event got cursory coverage while the spitting and ephathet spouting teapartiers got quite a bit.

BTW...if John Lewis says he was called a ******, I believe him. He has proven himself over the years to be an honest and straightforward person...

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your crowd estimates don't match other reports. In fact, they don't even match what can be estimated from photos (http://static.ow.ly/photos/normal/N45.jpg) of the event, which indicate crowds well above 10,000......Hey, Zig. How about a link to your source for the image? Given Fox New's history of using stock images and claiming they are current pics, I'd like to first start with evidence that image is even current.

In the meantime, that's a pretty slim crowd. It doesn't cover even the whole lawn between the steps and the Ulysses S Grant Memorial.

According to the USA Today article on assessing crowd numbers at the National Mall (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-19-crowd_N.htm):Average density is one person per 5 square feet. A tightly packed crowd has a density of one person per 2.5 square feet, an area slightly larger than this newspaper.

But I've not yet tracked down how many square feet 3/4 of the lawn area next to the capitol steps is.

[Ziggurat]

Hey, Zig. How about a link to your source for the image?

http://ow.ly/i/N45

Oh, and that photo crops out some of the crowd on the sections to the sides. Here's a panning video shot of the crowd which indicates that there were indeed a fair number of people on the sections to the sides:

http://www.twitvid.com/4D722

According to the USA Today article on assessing crowd numbers at the National Mall (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-19-crowd_N.htm):

Let's see... five square feet per person is about .465 square meters. So one person per five square feet is equal to about 2.1 people per square meter. Which is a slightly larger density than I referred to above.

But I've not yet tracked down how many square feet 3/4 of the lawn area next to the capitol steps is.

Really? Because all you had to do was a unit conversion on the number I already gave, which would give you around 177,000 square feet, more than 30,000 people if filled at 5 square feet per person. 3/4ths of that is WELL over 10,000. And if you didn't trust the number I gave, it would have been easy to estimate it yourself from the google map link I gave.

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://ow.ly/i/N45

Oh, and that photo crops out some of the crowd on the sections to the sides. Here's a panning video shot of the crowd which indicates that there were indeed a fair number of people on the sections to the sides:

http://www.twitvid.com/4D722



Let's see... five square feet per person is about .465 square meters. So one person per five square feet is equal to about 2.1 people per square meter. Which is a slightly larger density than I referred to above.



Really? Because all you had to do was a unit conversion on the number I already gave, which would give you around 177,000 square feet, more than 30,000 people if filled at 5 square feet per person. 3/4ths of that is WELL over 10,000. And if you didn't trust the number I gave, it would have been easy to estimate it yourself from the google map link I gave.The number of people on the sides is not exactly huge.

As for your numbers, I was trying to find independent information. The problem with my link is it doesn't tell us how much space is in the area occupied by the crowd.

You say, "That patch of ground they're filling is 16,500 m2". Where did you get that figure and are you considering the fact the crowd only goes back as far as the trees? It's empty lawn beyond the trees.


And you do realize, I hope, that just comparing this crowd to more significant protests, the crowd is pretty pitiful even if there is a big round number of folks there.

[Ziggurat]

You say, "That patch of ground they're filling is 16,500 m2". Where did you get that figure and are you considering the fact the crowd only goes back as far as the trees? It's empty lawn beyond the trees.

I told you already, more than once. Look at the google maps link. There's a little scale bar in the corner. Measure it out yourself. And yes, I'm considering the fact that the crowd thins out at the back. If it didn't, I'd put the figure at around 30,000. 10,000 is pretty much a lower bound estimate.

And you do realize, I hope, that just comparing this crowd to more significant protests

I'm not comparing this crowd to other crowds. I'm comparing headscratcher's claims of this crowd to the actual evidence of this crowd.

[Ziggurat]

Here's another media report about a tea party crowd from CNN:http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdkUnzkU2G
"Hundreds of people, at least dozens of people - we haven't gotten a count of how many people turned out there."
Was this an overestimate, headscratcher? You tell me:
http://www.americanpatrol.com/10-FEATURES/100327-FEATURE2/PHOTOS/crowd.jpg