Ahh maybe! Just seen a few pictures where the crowd looked much larger than in that picture. :subbies:Chris Pook said:Jarnhamar - That is a great example of the problem of relying on visual images.
Jarnhamar said:Also I'd imagine parking was a concern this year.
Almost 1,000 cars torched around France on New Year's Eve but government insists it 'went particularly well'
mariomike said:Chant your a$$ off. But, respect the rights and property of others.
Wow kind of coincidence, I got the current issue of GQ and they are even suggesting he should take a shot at the nomination. :facepalm:mariomike said:No government experience? No problem!
"For a Republican Party that was desperate to woo nonwhite voters before Donald Trump tossed his toupee in the ring, and will be even harder-pressed to woo them once our present mess is over, Johnson could be the sort of person the GOP tries to renovate into a viable candidate."
Interesting.
Or relying on any one single picture - as you so aptly put it in another thread with something similar to the first attachment. Along the same lines, though ...Chris Pook said:Jarnhamar - That is a great example of the problem of relying on visual images. The photographer's point of view (literally where they are standing), the way they compose the picture (to fill the screen or to minimize the crowd) and the editor's ability to crop the image all result in a subjective impression rather than an objective report.
I trust your individual observations and judgement, but to play the Devil's Advocate, did you see any vandalism personally? Any cars being torched or businesses being broken into/damaged? If you didn't (and I don't know if you did or not), you could also say, "I didn't see any vandalism"*. Does that make all the other pix of such crime shenanigans, "fake news"? No, but this is exactly why we need an aggregate of views. At least you're fair enough to say this ...Technoviking said:I was at this inauguration. There were hundreds of thousands of people. We were prevented from going to the mall because it was filled, at least near 4th.
BTW, well done taking in a bit of history when you had the chance. ;DTechnoviking said:The streets were filled with people: pro Trump, anti Trump and those in between.
It was very well attended.
Based on where the Capitol seems to be in both pix, they're both the same stretch, in the same direction, but at different points. So it's more an example of the second attachment, then - both true, but not the entire truth.Chris Pook said:Both pictures (the mall image of 2017 and the podium image that you posted, probably were of the same crowd).
:nod:Chris Pook said:I have the same problem with TV at any public gathering. The cameraman always fills the screen regardless if the crowd is 5 or 500,000.
I'd refine that a bit by saying, "Any image that isn't adulterated is a data point." Just like media stories.Chris Pook said:All images are factual.
mariomike said:With the millions of women at the Women's March in D.C.,
milnews.ca said:Or relying on any one single picture - as you so aptly put it in another thread with something similar to the first attachment. Along the same lines, though.
Without insulting anybody's intelligence, people find it easier when they see something simple. Something simple usually doesn't reflect the entire reality, but it's easy to "get". I'm guilty, too, of sometimes sharing memes that I could have fact checked because I go, "yeah, what THAT says". #CaveatLectorJarnhamar said:Right. In this day an age where people make careers out of lying and fake news we need more sources that singular pictures. The amount of people that believe sometbing, a picture or story, posted on Facebook is incredible.
Thanks for the kind words, Jarnhamar. When it comes to bias, I like to tell people I'm more liberal than some of my conservative friends, and more conservative than some of my liberal friends, sometimes surprising both ;DJarnhamar said:When it comes to news I'd trust you 100 times more than cnn etc.. You seem quite unbiased, you should start your own snoops style website. (seriously)
Good point -- for anyone interested, in theory, anyone who's done estimating distances w/the military will understand one way used by journalists & others to estimate crowd sizes ...mariomike said:As a non-expert, speaking only for myself, when it comes to estimating crowd sizes, all I can say is that when they send you into the middle of these things, on the ground, it is impossible.
I was used to working in large crowds. But, estimating their size is best left to the experts, in my opinion.
When I used to be a journalist in the middle of such things, I'd try to get an overview look and estimate, or I'd ask cops who were controlling things.The method goes back to the late 1960s and a University of California at Berkeley journalism professor named Herbert Jacobs, whose office was in a tower that overlooked the plaza where students frequently gathered to protest the Vietnam War. The plaza was marked with regular grid lines, which allowed Jacobs to see how many grid squares were filled with students and how many students on average packed into each grid.
After gathering data on numerous demonstrations, Jacobs came up with some rules of thumb that still are used today by those serious about crowd estimation. A loose crowd, one where each person is an arm's length from the body of his or her nearest neighbors, needs 10 square feet per person. A more tightly packed crowd fills 4.5 square feet per person. A truly scary mob of mosh-pit density would get about 2.5 square feet per person.
The trick, then, is to accurately measure the square feet in the total area occupied by the crowd and divide it by the appropriate figure, depending on assessment of crowd density. Thanks to aerial photos or mapping applications like Google Earth, even outdoor areas can be readily measured these days.
Jarnhamar said:Hard to say if it's another fake story but I read one of the women ORGANIZERS, is pro sharia law with family connections in HAMAS and recently met up with an ex Hamas operative.
Also Trump got more overweight women walking in one day than Michelle Obama did in 8 years.
Jarnhamar said:Also, mass protests aimed at preventing attendance , threats of property damage and physical assault (include being kidnapped and tortured) really negate the whole crowd size dick comparing too.
Conway then tried to pivot to policy points. But later in the interview, Todd pressed Conway again on why the White House sent Spicer out to make false claims about crowd size, asking: "What was the motive to have this ridiculous litigation of crowd size?"
"Your job is not to call things ridiculous that are said by our press secretary and our president. That's not your job," Conway said.
Todd followed up: "Can you please answer the question? Why did he do this? You have not answered it -- it's only one question."
Conway said: "I'll answer it this way: Think about what you just said to your viewers. That's why we feel compelled to go out and clear the air and put alternative facts out there."
If a says, "x was more than y", and b (which counts x & y) says, "just the opposite," how would that play if PMJT was "a"? Would people trust a or b more? Yeah, I'm suuuuuuuuure everyone would buy that as an "alternative fact" without "a" getting aaaaaaaaaaaany flack at all ...FJAG said:It seems that the lies coming out of the White House are "alternative facts" according to Kellyanne Conway.