doodledee

Big anti-war protests over the weekend. Lots of signs, lots of singing, and apparently most importantly, lots of people.

I say 'most importantly' because even though the demonstrations were extremely well attended and received extensive coverage through all the major news outlets, my peace-at-any-cost buddies were still pissed off.

Why you ask? Well it can't be that hard to figure out, let's see:

Maybe they were pissed because cops put the beat down on a group of peaceful demonstrators? Nope, not this time. (Some kids did get arrested for laying in traffic, though.)

Well then they must be mad because the pro-conflict demonstrations from earlier in the day got more attention in the media? Uhh, not hardly.

Ah-ha! Then it can only be because the veggie burritos people were selling actually had chicken in them, right? Alas, wrong again.

People are cranked-up because they believe the reported estimates of the number of people who demonstrated are too low. While those that actually attended say that the number was well into the hundreds of thousands, the media is reporting it as being much smaller. In particular, the Times wrote that 'tens of thousandsof protesters' showed up; similarly, the Post reported on 'tens of thousands of antiwar demonstrators' converging on Washington.

I don't really get why a stupid crowd estimate would upset people who are getting their message covered so extensively. Why not just be glad so many like-minded people are out there willing to stand-up for what they believe in?

Here's an article that talks about some of the reasons why people think the number is important. Coincidentally, the last paragraph gets to the point I'm trying to make:

"I wish we wouldn't get so hung up on numbers," said Morgan, of Takoma Park. "It's false to assume that if you have a million people on the Mall you're somehow more right than you are if you have 200,000 people on the Mall. The message doesn't acquire greater value."

She's right, you know.