I'm surprised this hasn't been posted yet by a BBS liberal, seeing as how they usually like to keep everyone up to date on current events. Aerial photos: Protest crowd below estimates Friday, February 21, 2003 Posted: 11:14 PM EST (0414 GMT) SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- An aerial survey of Sunday's anti-war protest in San Francisco showed the number of attendees was around 65,000 people -- not the 150,000 to 200,000 estimated by organizers and police. The survey, commissioned by the San Francisco Chronicle and SFGate.com, used a series of high-resolution aerial photos and determined there were about 65,000 people in attendance at the protest's peak. Although the number cannot account for protesters who left before that time or those who showed up later, experts say such a survey is more accurate than visual scan methods used by police and organizers. "After hearing concerns from our readers about our accuracy in reporting crowd size in demonstrations, we were determined to come up with a better method to calculate the number of people who turn out for such events," Chronicle Executive Editor Phil Bronstein said in Friday's edition. The Associated Press used the police estimate of 150,000 people. The police and organizers stood by their estimates. "Come on, that's ridiculous," said Bill Hackwell, spokesman for International ANSWER, one of the groups that organized Sunday's protest. Greg Suhr, the San Francisco deputy police chief who calculated the police figure, agreed. "I can tell you for a fact that's an enormously low number," he said, adding that the stands alone in San Francisco's Pacific Bell Park hold 40,000 people. Police estimates were based on the 43,000 people that Civic Center Plaza is estimated to hold and previous estimates of crowd sizes on Market Street. The roadway and sidewalk had about 100,000 people on them, Suhr said. A media scholar said such doubts are to be expected. "The number of people is a mythical number, and now you're going to turn it into a fact, and that won't be welcomed," said Alex S. Jones, director of Harvard University's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. "There's an old saying in journalism: People only see what they believe. This is an emotional issue, not a factual issue, as far as most people are concerned." To get the 65,000 estimate, the photographs taken from 2,000 feet were overlaid with a grid. Each grid was evaluated and assigned a density of people from 10 to 100 percent full. Most were judged at 25 percent to 50 percent full.
Nice tone. Helpful. Yeah, this "scientific" method is a hot topic here in SF now, as you might imagine. It's not very newsworthy, for the following reasons. 1) One instant of time does not a protest make. These things evolve over hours, and I've never seen convincing argumentation that says these guys caught the peak of the rally. But let's assume that they *did* count everyone at the peak, just to be really nice to them. 2) Assuming that, the natural question is: who takes the total number seriously anyway? There are always wildly differing estimates. The main point is order of magnitude. Tens of thousands of people. Not trivial. When is the last times so many people turned out to voice an opinion in so many cities world wide? Maybe you don't agree with them, but this nickel-and-dime analysis of numbers is irrelevant. 3) Yes, organizers overestimate. Why is that? Well, as I can attest through my own experience, newspaper reports have, over the last ten years at least, cut the actual number down by half or even by a tenth. I've been to many events that clearly had thousands of people and appeared in the newspaper as "200 people." So the organizers have taken the low road and responded by overestimating. I wish they had taken the high road, but I understand their frustration. 4) For every person willing to spend a precious weekend at a protest, there are at least three or four people who feel at least 95% the same way but just don't care to spend a day this way. I've been to a couple of events, but usually I don't go. Especially as the crowds get larger, I'm less likely to go. So if one is to make the argument "only 60,000 people disagree with Bush in San Francisco!" then I need to talk with that person about some financial investments I can make for them.
Uh-oh. Freak started two liberal-bashin' threads in less than an hour. I'll bet someone spent the weekend watching FOXNews ...
He meant the numbers were inflated from what they actually were, and they were. And they always are. Me and my three million termites had a pro-bush rally today though so it's all good.
Now, now, leave TheFreak alone. Much like the homosexual who is grappling with his choice to come out of the closet, our favorite heavy metal afficionado can't come to grips with his conservativism. The only thing that could keep him away from a Motley Crue reunion would be a new Talking Points Memo by his idol, Bill O'Reilly.
TheFreak refuses to accept his conservativism. I've been trying to get him to "come out" of the closet. It's like Liberace saying he was straight when everyone knew different-everyone on the BBS knows TheFreak is conservative.
RM95 drops so many homo non-sequitors that I'm starting to think that, at least unconsciously, they aren't really non-sequitors anymore. ... But seriously, comparing this situation to Liberace was hilarious. Love it. And hey, let me drop my political gloves. Okay, I admit it. I walked by the San Francisco protest last weekend, and there were 31 people. I counted them. Pathetic. The rest of those people in the photos were inflatable rent-a-hippies.
Those things are great! My sister, who'd be labeled a commie if she still lived in Texas, still isn't quite liberal enough for Santa Cruz. She has one of those in her car to save her from the hordes of crazy leftists that populate the area.
I'll be the first one to admit that there were lots of people there...the actual number is a red herring. There are lots of people who oppose military action in this instance. I think they are dead wrong...but that's what this country is all about. You can't get 3 people to agree on pizza toppings...so why does it suprise ANYBODY that we can't get 240 million people on the same page about military conflict?
You don't have to rent inflatable hippies. I know plenty of real hippies that you could get to show up by offeriung them beer and a bag. You could get a dozen for the cost of a keg and a bag. then they would get the word out so that 3 times as many show up looking for he free beer...
Both sides---the liberals on one, the (ugh) conservatives on the other---likely inflate their numbers. How long has the Bush camp been touting pro-war numbers? "65% of Americans are in favor of military action against Saddam. And four out of five dentists surveyed recommend Trident gum for their patients who chew gum." "We here at FOX 'News' took a random survey along Memorial Drive in Houston today, asking people (who are already comfortably rich and beneficiaries of Bush's tax 'breaks' and whose children have no fear of ever putting on a uniform or firing a shot in anger---much like the President himself, at a younger age) are you in favor of military action against Iraq? And the overwhelming response was yes. "In the name of fair play, we then posed the same question to some black guy downtown. He said 'no, I don't like war.' Then we got the hell out of there! This is FOX 'News'. All Aryan, all day, all night."