At the beginning of his “Restoring Honor” rally in D.C. last weekend, Fox News’s Glenn Beck joked, “I have just gotten word from the media that there is over 1,000 people here today.”
In reality, “the media”—whoever that broad label encompasses—did not settle on a figure at all. Fox News claimed over 500,000 people showed up, while CBS, enlisting the help of aerial number-counters AirPhotosLive.com, estimated the crowd at 87,000. Others did not count at all. Noting that NBC called the crowd at 300,000, the Times settled on “a large turnout.” The Journal offered no figures at all, saying The National Park Service no longer provided crowd estimates. It did however note that the gathering “appeared to be one of the largest rallies of recent years in the nation’s capital.”
If we can’t be accurate, do we then be vague?
It’s important to know the size of a crowd. Not only are people curious, size gives a general sense of an event’s importance. However, if we cannot be sure of crowd size, if estimations range across hundreds of thousands, and if there is no standard, consistent, across-the-board measure, what value does a estimation provide? Should journalists continue to provide numerical crowd estimates when reporting on events like these? Why or why not?
Yes, I think so. With an article about a rally/protest/riot whatever, readers will always want an answer to the question, "how many people were there?" That's how we as readers judge how important the story is. How else to do that, without numbers?
#1 Posted by Lauren Kirchner, CJR on Tue 31 Aug 2010 at 03:31 PM
I agree. We can qualify them, emphasize that they are only estimates, etc. But we shouldn't give up on doing our honest best on these estimates just because they are difficult and contentious.
#2 Posted by mike hoyt, CJR on Tue 31 Aug 2010 at 04:26 PM
I can understand an outlet's reluctance to make an estimation when estimates vary so wildly. But agree with Mike and Lauren that an informed and scientific-as-possible attempt should be made. It's important for context. And, sure it's tough, but we shouldn't shy from it because of that. I do wonder though if there might be a way of coming to a consensus on a universally accepted method of measuring crowds? Then the figures would prove quite valuable.
#3 Posted by Joel Meares, CJR on Tue 31 Aug 2010 at 04:43 PM
Many people can have vastly different assessments of crowd size. Having covered several DC events, both while the Park Service gave estimates and after they stopped, I always found their estimates to be quite low compared to the density I experienced covering outdoor concerts (where one knows the number of tickets sold).
One simple problem with assessing crowd size is how varied it can be when the crowd is under partial cover. To give a simple example with the recent Beck event, the day in Washington was clear and sunny, with temperatures in the low nineties at points. Many people congregated densely under the shade of the trees that run along the Reflecting Pool to stay out of the sun. It is simply impossible to actually count these people from the air, so best estimates come into play -- and those will always be debatable.
The estimate will always be a story. I think making it a sidebar will constantly be an issue with any political event. It's unavoidable.
#4 Posted by Ben, CJR on Tue 31 Aug 2010 at 07:02 PM
If you're covering the event, the numbers are important. The reader can decide if it's important. Remember to report.
#5 Posted by Astralis, CJR on Tue 31 Aug 2010 at 08:24 PM
An AP reporter on the presidential camapign trail told me once to get an accurate crowd estimate ask the organizer, divide that numbr by 2 and subtract a third. james lynch.
#6 Posted by James Lynch, CJR on Wed 1 Sep 2010 at 09:33 AM
Journalists owe their readers an estimate of the number of attendees. Why not let the National Park Service again start providing the numbers as it had done for years?
http://www.bottomlinecom.com/nationalnews/glennbeckcrowdcount.html
#7 Posted by John Landsberg, CJR on Wed 1 Sep 2010 at 10:07 AM
No, the media should not estimate the crowd size. If the journalist can find a credible source or defined methodology for estimating they should cite it. But journalists should not estimate themselves. Find a press release and cite the press release.
With RFID tags in drivers licenses (that conform to Real-ID) we will soon have actual counts compiled by the NSA. All we need to do then is FOIA request it from them. No need to estimate at all.
#8 Posted by Timothywmurray, CJR on Wed 1 Sep 2010 at 11:11 AM
The importance of this issue is underscored by the National Park Service's refusal to provide the estimates it has in the past. Size matters. It has big political ramifications, and the NPS has come under fire by political interests on the other side of some of their previous estimates. I agree that a single reporter can't and shouldn't provide an estimate when the number surpasses more than a few thousand, but we should find a way to cooperate (hello AP?) on a cost-effective but reliable methodology to get a crowd estimate. I'm bothered by the big swing in these recent DC estimates.
#9 Posted by Robert Behre, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 12:38 AM
Why not, as John Landsberg suggests, have the Park Service get back in the game? The last crowd estimate they officially released was for 1995's "Million Man March," where the head counters deemed that the organizers came up 60% short of their eponymous goal. Farrakhan et al threatened to sue, and the Park service decided that henceforth the estimates weren't worth the trouble. What would be downside of a tightly constructed law setting up some sort of expert advisory/supervisory panel to oversee this kind of analysis, and perhaps indemnifying the Park Service from legal action for any such number?
Pie in the sky, probably, and maybe just a plain old bad idea.
But here's another thought: Media organizations--perhaps the television companies, who already pool a great deal of coverage in the D.C. area--hire a single contractor who uses some generally agreed upon method to measure crowd size at demonstrations like these that are foreseen to contain, say, 50,000 or more people. You'd get a consistent methodology time after time, and maybe we could put these controversies, which seem to pop up after every mass march or rally, to bed.
Of course, you have the free rider problem. Why on earth should the TV networks, or the AP, or whomever, pay for this when the number will sift out all over the place?
So another idea, one that resonates nicely in our age of citizen journalism: What if a group of regional apolitical volunteers--small pilots, retired aerial image analysts--took it upon themselves to do the work? People have all kinds of hobbies...
#10 Posted by Clint Hendler, CJR on Fri 3 Sep 2010 at 11:16 AM
CJR is asking whether reporters should find a way to estimate rally and march crowds. Like, 'maybe we shouldn't.' Like 'it might be too controversial.' 'we might get it wrong.'
Or some reactionary clown might call us socialists. Again.
Grow a pair, brothers and sisters. We get conflicting information all the time. I thought sorting the credible from the crazies was, like, our job.
--oh, wait, but the crazies are more powerful than we are now. And they keep saying we're oppressing them!
And woe betide the journalist who oppresses someone. Right?
Especially a poor little psychotainer with a $600,000-a-week income and a Jesus complex.
#11 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Fri 3 Sep 2010 at 05:13 PM
How about squeezing off an aerial photo, and letting the image speak for itself?
My first boss instructed me to get my crowd estimates from city police. On my first try, the cop was so obviously wrong that I never again took anyone else's word for it. My method was to count one group of 100 and use that group as a template to make my best estimate on the remainder. Flat out, I don't trust anyone to make my own objective judgments for me. Just because you can attribute something doesn't mean it's right.
#12 Posted by Bert, CJR on Mon 13 Sep 2010 at 03:53 PM