To make the matter extra official, ABCNews.com, on early Saturday evening, posted the following for-the-record, headlined “ABC News Was Misquoted on Crowd Size”:
Conservative activists, who organized a march on the U.S. Capitol today in protest of the Obama administration’s health care agenda and government spending, erroneously attributed reports on the size of the crowds to ABC News.
Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, the group that organized the event, said on stage at the rally that ABC News was reporting that 1 million to 1.5 million people were in attendance.
At no time did ABC News, or its affiliates, report a number anywhere near as large. ABCNews.com reported an approximate figure of 60,000 to 70,000 protesters, attributed to the Washington, D.C., fire department. In its reports, ABC News Radio described the crowd as “tens of thousands.”
Brendan Steinhauser, spokesman for FreedomWorks, said he did not know why Kibbe cited ABC News as a source.
As a result of Kibbe’s erroneous attribution, several bloggers and commenters repeated the misinformation.
It’s worth noting that the other mainstream media outlets covering the tea party protest story—from The Washington Post to The New York Times, from Politico to Fox News—ran with the D.C. fire department’s official, 60,000-to-70,000 crowd estimate. Even Glenn Beck, who fashioned himself, from his perch in New York City, the day’s master of ceremonies via his 9/12 Project, grudgingly accepted those numbers: “The official estimate is 60,000 people,” he said during his live coverage of the protest. “I’ve lived in Washington. It looks more than 60,000. But we’ll go with the official numbers today.”
But, then, per much of the blogged coverage of the protests: the numbers don’t matter much, anyway. Because the point of the whole exercise on Saturday was not, apparently, to gather a crowd in the numeric sense; the point was, apparently, to gather a crowd in the symbolic sense. “I dunno if that’s 2 million,” The Rhetorician, poster of a much-linked time-lapse video of the crowd, remarked. “But really, who the hell cares? Put any number you want on them. The video speaks for itself. And this is what it says: It’s not just a Mob. It’s a popular movement.”
It’s that who-the-hell-cares sensibility that defined the day on Saturday. Here, again, is Malkin: “As I joked after the Tax Day Tea Party: ‘When left-wing activists make crowd estimates, the algorithm is: Six figures = one million.’ Safe to say, by liberal math standards, today’s turnout rivaled the ‘Million Man March’ and the ‘Million Mom March’ for sure.”
Indeed, numbers themselves, per this rendering of reality, are relative. “However big it was,” Hot Air’s Allah wrote of the crowd, “it was bigger than expected.” As The Cypress Times’s John Winder put it, “‘Media’ estimates range from 60,000 to 500,000 to around 2 million (yes, 2,000,000). Those estimates, the language employed, and the visuals chosen for use in reporting the rally and representing the people gathered, vary greatly based solely on bias.” And here’s the Pajamas Media blogger Stephen Green: “Tens of thousands? Technically accurate, but….”
But therein lies the problem. “Technically accurate” is, in general, not something that can fairly be followed with a “but.” When it comes to something readily observable—like, say, the size of a crowd—“technical accuracy” is not a matter of opinion. It is not something that can be accepted or rejected at will.
And yet, Green again: “Charlie Martin—a computer scientist with extensive intelligence experience—emails from his secret bunker near Boulder, CO: I did a back-of-envelope based on the photos and reports. A pretty dense crowd is about 1.8 people per square meter, and the National Mall alone is about 125 hectares, 1.25 million square meters. So that would be 2.3 million people. Given the report from Steve of an actual literal count of 450K early on, I think the 2 million number is *very* plausible.”

Ms. Garber,
There are those who are so blind that they cannot see; This article is point one.
I note that for a journal about reporting metheods, YOU did not spend time interviewing participants. You focused on the "horse race" aspects of the reporting.
In other words, you did not care why your fellow Americans went out to protest. Not one word.
And if I hear the Ad Hom "RAAACIST," It just proves that this protest is meant to be stifled.
There are issues here, and the lack of mention (and I am awaiting the first Ad Hom to rear it's ugly head) proves you don't want an audience (or these selfsame protesters to buy your papers or News magazines).
Here's a .02 hint:
We live in a Two Party System, it goes in cycles. Republicans feel that Democrats are treated nicer in the press (and given 60 Minutes last night, why shouldn't we believe it?).
So, either treat Republicans 9and their activists) as you do Democrats (Medea Benjamin anyone?) or treat Democrats as you do Republicans and their activists.
Or even better, Be wary of whomever is in power. Period.
That means Victor navasky cannot be on the 2009 Nation Cruise if he is on the masthead of this magazine.
#1 Posted by JSF, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 12:02 PM
Were the protesters unclear or are you unable to see beyond your nose? Speaking of nose..you can pick and chose what you want to report on, but truth is always out there for anyone to grab.....you can twist and spin this in anyway you chose...but the truth always prevails!
This is a movement against Big Government...a Government out of control and it is not political bias...both parties need to be purged out and get back to what our Founding Fathers intended this nation to be....Back to our Constitution!
The question I have for you....are you satisfied with all the out of control spending in the Stimulus package? Did you approve the fact that it was passed so urgently, only to sit on the table for a few days and then signed by the President? Are you ok with a Communist who was proudly picked and appointed to a position of power in our White House? If you agree with any of these issues, or you are justifying them...then my last question would be...Why do you hate this country?
#2 Posted by Joyce, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 01:19 PM
It's weird and fascinating to watch conservatives drifting towards the "what is truth, anyway?" attitude. When liberals started thinking that way, it coincided with the beginning of their decline.
#3 Posted by D. B., CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 01:24 PM
The previous post of mine is to the "Mainstream Media"
I failed to mention that before I posted my comment
#4 Posted by Joyce, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 01:27 PM
Joyce,
DB thinks that we on the Right belive in Derrida, WE DON'T.
Again, neither Garber nor any member of CJR interviewed (or even deigns to know) a Conservative or republican about:
A) What we are protesting;
B) What the grievences against the media are;
C) What our internal poltics are (nationally and within each of the 50 states);
It's lazy reporting and shows that CJR is not serious in it's mission statement.
Again, allowing Victor Navasky to go to the 2009 Nation cruise while he is on the masthead proves the Right's point about the media.
Mr. Navsky, choose.
Ms. Gerber, learn what your fellow Americans are talking about.
This is not hard.
#5 Posted by JSF, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 01:32 PM
You employed neocon propaganda tactics very well. Republicans lie about Democratic numbers when Democrats protest and now that Democrats are in power they are using the same tactics against everyone else (including democrats).
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=288868-1&showVid=true
There's your teeny tiny fringe of near or more than 2 million filling every street leading up to the Mall for 2 miles.
#6 Posted by Jackobin, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 04:55 PM
the real problem is there are only anchor men and no reporters, the news has become a PC flood of only approved information even if every thing they say is true isnt the fact the tea parties are happening news,shouldn't it be reported without "tea bagger",nazi,you pick it. the people I have met are none of these, but regular people of every stripe who dare point out the emperor has no clothes.There are no death panels, will take them out, illegals not covered --- anymore! abortion not in there OOPS!!!!
#7 Posted by paul, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 04:57 PM
Juat wondering Megan - are you for real? You seem such a cartoonish characature of a snarky Dowd / Collins wannabe. Are you really that totally clueless regarding anything that isn't explained for you on the Kos or Huffpost?
There is a big world out there, you know. You might get curious at some point about people with a different opinion than yours.
#8 Posted by JLD, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 05:50 PM
Very disappointing Megan.
You scoff at these claims and dismiss them out-of-hand, and not ONCE did you ask to see my 53-inch penis so you could judge it for yourself.
In other words, you did not care. You already had your mind made up. You didn't realize that the MSM has been ignoring my 53-inch penis for years now, so therefore you just assumed it doesn't exist, right?
There's a big world out there Megan, you ought to pull your head out of your MSM papers and magazines, think for yourself and make YOUR OWN fair, objective assessment of my 53-inch penis.
#9 Posted by Freedom Tent, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 06:42 PM
It’s to give credence to the oft-repeated claim that “the base is not reality-based,” and to suggest that a loyal opposition is also a laughable one.
Are you fucking kidding me? The lunatic left inflated its protest numbers for years, but now, this time, the ivory tower jagoffs like Garber decide its time to hurl some flaming shit filled bags at "protesters"? What gives? Why now and not then?
Me thinks this is the reason for polling numbers like this: http://people-press.org/report/543/
#10 Posted by Huh, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 07:11 PM
Based on the content of these comments, I'm inclined to suggest that the author call around to Walgreens, CVS and Rite Aid to find out if there's a Prozac shortage in the country. If any of these idiots think there were more than 70,000 people at the teabagger social, I've got a Kenyan birth certificate for a certain president that's for sale.
#11 Posted by Sal Hepatica, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 07:16 PM
I find it hilarious that the conservatives don't get that this piece wasn't necessarily about the protest itself, but rather the jaw-dropping, easily debunked lie that conservatives pumped all day about there being 2 million people at the Tea Party protest.
No wonder they hate the media so much, they don't have simple reading comprehension to realize what a story is about.
#12 Posted by Richard, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 11:17 PM
800,000 not 1.8 million people attended the inauguration.
CJR has been part of the problem, rather than the solution, for journalism.
#13 Posted by Tim, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 11:26 PM
I did indeed go to C-Span and found that even as the President was making a major speech, C-Span chose not to cover it but only the rally. That alone said volumes about how even C-Span has had its mandate subverted.
However, going to the link, the first image looks very impressive until you stop it at the first second and blow it to full screen and you see that the crowd covers just the area near the podium getting quite thinned out near the edges.
The rest of the mall is green and empty, there are no jumbo screens deployed nor the need of them. Many other shots were purported to be that crowd but obviously not for a lot of reasons.
Given the months of 24/7 free TV hype, 2 million would not have been a surprising number, or if it had just been a website and facebook then 50k would have been a very respectable number, however given the hype and the actual numbers it was very lame. And proof of that is how hard they have tried to cover that up.
#14 Posted by FreeDem, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 11:52 PM
The San Francisco Chronicle once hired an aerial survey firm to fly over and photograph a protest march in SF. Shortly after the march the crowd was estimated in news stories at 250,000. Several days later the actual count came in from the survey firm and found the number to be 75,000. Using that as a gauge I'd suggest that the highest reasonable guess be divided by 4.
#15 Posted by Menlo Bob, CJR on Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 03:31 AM
Some of these comments amuse me: "YOU did not spend time interviewing participants. You focused on the "horse race" aspects of the reporting. In other words, you did not care why your fellow Americans went out to protest. Not one word." They didn't interview participants because the Columbia Journalism Review is a JOURNALISM REVIEW. They don't cover politics. They don't cover events like rallies. They're not a newspaper or news magazine or political journal. They cover the media. That's all they cover. This is a story about the crowd estimate, as it was reported in the media and then misreported by others. It never claims to be anything more than that. It's not CJR's job to cover the rally and interview participants. Asking why CJR didn't actually cover the rally and interview participants is like asking why Sports Illustrated didn't cover the rally.
#16 Posted by Joe, CJR on Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 09:00 AM
How sad that some posters here go off on wild tangents instead of dealing with the narrow set of facts that the post was about -- that the estimates of crowds at the Glenn Beck rally, which Beck evidently got right while some of his most prominent fans (Malkin, Newsbusters, etc.) evidently just made up their "facts."
Prof. Doig, who is known for his expert dicing of numbers, provides the most reliable estimate. And the response above that suggests the 1.8m Obama inaugural estimate that Meagan linked to was inflated because another estimate put it at 1.3 million is a much smaller (though significant) difference than the kind of numbers Malkin used, inflating what even Beck accepted about 30-fold.
Did Newsbusters.org hold itself to the same standards it expects of others and
check whether the crowd figures at its website were fanciful? I cannot find any evidence of a correction, but the website also uses a very weak search engine so it may be there somewhere. Anyone who can determine this care to post here with an answer?
#17 Posted by David Cay Johnston, CJR on Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 09:32 AM
Had any of these folks been here during the crushing crowds of Obama's inauguration, they would realize just how large 1 million plus is. The crowd for that was wall-to-wall people from the Capitol to the Washington Monument and beyond. It took an hour and a half to walk three blocks up Independence Ave after it was over. I
Your crowd barely extended beyond Third St. Hell, the Iraq War protest in 2003 extended west of 7th St and only got covered in the Metro section of the Washington Post. The March for Women's Lives was far larger than that and only got a captioned photo. The Promise Keepers, on the other end of the spectrum, was indeed huge, as is an annual evangelical concert held on the Mall. Metro didn't even need to run extra trains for the protest Saturday and another event managed to hold its own (Black Family Reunion) on the Mall without your crowd spilling into its space.
Here's a test from an old DC hand: if you couldn't make a cell phone call from the Mall because circuits were busy, then you had a capacity crowd. Since I was using my cell the whole time without a problem, it was a respectable size, but hardly record.
#18 Posted by lou, CJR on Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 01:06 PM
How big will inaugural crowd be? Do the math: "Almost as bitterly disputed were the crowd estimates from a 2003 antiwar demonstration in Washington, which drew between 30,000 and 500,000 protesters, depending on who was doing the estimating."
800,000 not 1.8 million people attended the inauguration.
#19 Posted by Tim, CJR on Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 06:18 PM
This is the telling part of this article: a mistrust of the media’s methods themselves—and of mediated information more generally. It was the spreading sensibility that said, “We don’t trust the official numbers."
There are no official numbers. There were no methods employed by the media for estimating the size of the crowd. But the media did REPORT numbers. Why? Are numbers the only way of reporting the march and the area occupied?
CJR doesn't report on the media, they editorialize - a political act. Very little reporting on the media is done, by anyone.
Journalists consider quality of newspapers
Why Newspapers Aren't Worth Buying
#20 Posted by Tim, CJR on Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 06:42 PM
"There are no official numbers."
What about the D.C. fire department's figure of 60,000 - 70,000?
Lemme guess... clearly it's a lie, coming from those socialist fire fighters and their Commie Red trucks?
You're proving Megan Garber's point, you know.
#21 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 07:29 PM
Pete Piringer has been identified as the source of the DC Fire Department figure. He says it is unofficial. You can check it out.
I would be interested in hearing whether Megan Garber thinks my comments are proving her point, as oppose to say ... yours?
#22 Posted by Tim, CJR on Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 09:21 PM
Here, I'll make it easy ... search: Piringer "It was in no way an official estimate"
#23 Posted by Tim, CJR on Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 09:26 PM
Here's the original : UPDATE - several people treated for injury and illness on the Mall nothing extraordinary unofficial crowds 60,000-75,000 UNOFFICIAL12:43 PM Sep 12th from mobile web
#24 Posted by Tim, CJR on Tue 15 Sep 2009 at 09:49 PM
Tim, the DC Fire Dept. makes it very clear that their figure is just an estimate, obviously if there aren't tickets sold for an event that size or larger, it becomes hard to get an exact figure. But you're digging your hole even deeper; even Glenn Beck settled on the phantom unofficial official phony fire dept. estimate of 60,000 to 70,000.
Are you really saying that because Piringer says it "is no way an official estimate," the 60,000 to 75,000 figure should be immediately tossed aside as irrelevant?
He arrived in the morning and said 60,000 to 70,000, and then AFTER the event he tweeted a revised estimate of 75,000 maximum.
We are talking about the people who are in charge of providing emergency services for the area, and they have handled crowds like this before.
Or you can look at the Transity Authority figure, 87,000 extra public transit riders that day.
You mean to tell me that those transit and fire dept. folks were totally asleep at the wheel all day, but fortunately we have Tabitha Hale's 2 million or Charlie Martin's 2.3 million or even FreedomWork's "conservative" 600,000 - 800,000, take your pick, keeping track of reality for us?
Let's say Piringer's morning guess of 65,000 was short because of late-comers to the party. AFTER the event, he tweeted 75,000.
You see, a normal, rational thinking person takes an objective figure like that as more or less an accurate number unless there's a good reason to believe otherwise.
But you dismiss it out of hand because it isn't inflated enough for your taste. You spin reflexively; you know a million people showed up there, all you have to do is find a way to get there. And hey, after all, Matt Welch says "Do not believe any number that says 'thousands,'" so...
Like Garber said, "above logic" and "beyond logic." I'm not trying to be partisan here, just logical. You're trying to make dreams come true.
#25 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Wed 16 Sep 2009 at 12:45 AM
I have done my own study base on a devised stationary methodology and calculation which you can find here:
http://deathbymedia.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/912-washington-dc-tea-party-rally-crowd-estimation/
It's backed by visual evidence (pictures and clips) all available in the same entry, plus determining the boundaries of the rally and calculation of the final tally derived from the density of the crowd at each given block. My calculus puts the figures around 130k up to 160k.
#26 Posted by deathbymedia, CJR on Wed 23 Sep 2009 at 01:41 AM