I watched and listened to the Women's March yesterday on YouTube. As these words are written, yesterday was Saturday, January 19, 2019.
I am glad that I watched the Women's March on YouTube. As far as my untrained eye could see, it was a big success and there were lots of people marching.
I could see and hear for myself what went on, or at least what was uploaded and televised. On the other hand, if I had waited for the corporate media accounts, I would not know much at all. To read the reporting is the opposite of the photographs of the attendance at the Women's March this year, sort of the opposite of hearing certain huge crowd estimates of the inauguration the day before the first Women's March and comparing those estimates to the actual photographs.
The marchers and the speakers that I saw and heard embraced everyone: Jews, Christians, atheists, agnostics, Black, White, Hispanic, straight people, gay people -- everyone. They were united in their affirmation of democracy and their rejection of autocracy for all people.
They overcame their differences at the Women's March in 2019. Just as they overcame all their differences in 2017 and in 2018.
The corporate media did not overcome their differences, though. They refused to admit their own shortcomings as usual. This year, they buried their accounts deep in their reporting which mostly confirmed their tired and untrue storylines, repeated without a lot of evidence once again. In fact, much of the reporting published after the March looks like it was written before the March.
A Washington Post report estimated the crowd size at 100,000 in the cold and in the shutdown which meant that snow was still on the ground because there were no snowplows to remove it. Supporting marches in dozens of other U.S. cities were called "parallel marches." See Ashraf Khalil, Associated Press / A Scaled-Down, But Still Angry, Women’s March Returns, published in The Washington Post Online, January 19, 2019.
Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press
For an alternative example, The New York Times report repeated its previous storylines and led with a new claim, which was that crowds appeared to be smaller than at the first March in 2017. However, the Times avoided reporting any crowd estimates. At least the NYT report noted that turnout increased as the morning went on. Supporting marches in other U.S. cities were reported as "rival marches." See Michael Wines and Farah Stockman, Smaller Crowds Turn Out for Third Annual Women’s March Events, New York Times Online, January 19, 2019.
Sarah Silbiger / New York Times
Thank the good Lord for the evidence of our own senses. Thank the good Lord for the Women's March for democracy for all of our country's people.
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments