Thanks, that's the kind of discussion I was looking for ..
Comment: ballots are useless if the media fails to report the debate from the protestors' POV.
Nobody likes to go out in the cold, or drive a thousand miles to march -- these folks think things are seriously wrong. As informal as it is, these protests show that the media and politics are failing their accountability for that POV.
And they're right:
story.news.yahoo.com
Look at the stories of the DC protests... They are clearly designed to downplay or confuse any estimate of the size of the crowds, that discrepancy that jumps out of the page -- only at the end are there coy references to what the number really was. Even then, there were no professional estimates by any objective sources, they left it as "maybe more than 30,000 but 500,000 is laughable". That's quite a range, for a supposedly objective source. Basically, it's a joke, designed to obscure any truth.
It's no wonder people no longer believe the media, and have to go see for themselves.
Here's the opening paragraph:
"A crowd of about 1,000 rallied in view of the Executive Mansion..."
So, the reader skimming the top of the story sees "1,000", and figures, no big deal. Then:
"On Saturday, a great throng stretched from the grounds of the U.S. Capitol and along the National Mall back to the Smithsonian Institution (news - web sites) for a rally in bitter cold. The U.S. Park Police no longer gives estimates of rally attendance"
Just like VNS failed to provide exit polls, any information from a reliable, accountable source familiar with such things, like USPP has always done in the past, is eliminated, leaving only unaccountable estimates from anonymous and partisan sources.
Then, this clearly editorial comment:
"In the past, crowds taking up similar space were thought to be 70,000 strong or higher, but any parallels with other events were highly inexact. A much smaller group from the rally, but still numbering over 30,000 by city police estimates, went on to march to the Washington Navy Yard"
And this capper to further obscure any idea of participation, at least in this story, and leaving any large numbers for the very end of the story:
"Rally speakers offered varying estimates of the crowd size, with one telling the crowd that 500,000 had come, but even some supporters of the event thought that was wildly exaggerated"
It's a laugh, alright.
Anyway, that's the purpose of rallies, political expression, protest marches, and debates.
Otherwise, it's "sit down, shut up, and if we want your opinion, we'll give it to you. Now, go vote for who we tell you."
I doubt you and I will agree on policy, but "seizing power" is hardly what these protests can be called by any stretch of the imagination ...
Hey, what do you think of the Venezuelan protests???
Do you think they should go back in their houses, shut up and watch tv? |
