RE: [Leica] FS: Special Anti-War Protest edition Leica M7

["bdcolen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

First, my appologies.

Second - There are several possible explanations for the media in some
cities siting smaller numbers than the police - first, caution
(timidity) on the part of the media, fearing that if they err on the
side of siting too large a number, they will lose credibility with the
"establishment;" second, different counting methods; third, counts done
at different times; third, counts done in different places. I seriously
doubt that the NYPD is "siding" with the demonstrators and inflating the
counts - remember how traumatized that department was by 9/11 and the
losses it suffered both in terms of its own, and in terms of firemen
friends of cops - I would expect the average NYPDer - for very
understandable reasons - to view the demonstrators as "tools" of the
9/11 terrorists and to deflate, rather than inflate, the numbers.

B. D.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Henning
Wulff
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 5:24 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] FS: Special Anti-War Protest edition Leica M7


At 3:21 PM -0500 2/16/03, bdcolen wrote:
>Oh pulllleeeze, Henning - Any of us are capable of looking at the t.v. 
>coverage of the demonstrations this past weekend and telling that 
>however one wants to argue about head counts, there was an astounding 
>number of people, in New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, etc. etc., 
>who came out to protest.
>
>"1000 weirdo people who don't count" - dream on.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Henning 
>Wulff
>Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 7:12 PM
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: RE: [Leica] FS: Special Anti-War Protest edition Leica M7
>
>
>At 5:59 PM -0500 2/14/03, Austin Franklin wrote:
>>   > Well, the last one was estimated by SF Police (not organisers) at
>>>   100,000 to 150,000 and with the growing shift in public feeling  
>>> about  potential war, I would guess rather more than that this.
>>>
>>>   How big does it have to be before it's classed as "massive"...?
>>
>>I don't know, but when they count the number, are they going to use 
>>"statistical" (snicker, cough, choke...) methods, and "really" count 
>>only a very dense area, and then apply this density for some overall
>>(inflated) area...and play with the numbers so that 10,000, including 
>>normal traffic and tourists etc. somehow turns into "100,000 ANGRY 
>>protestors"?
>
>No, of course not. They're going to look at a large field, in which 
>there are only 10 or 20 protesters and apply _that_ density for the 
>overall area and arrive at a conclusion that 100,000 angry protesters 
>are really only 1000 weirdo people who don't matter anyway.
>
>--

B.D., I think you're not clear on my point. My post was merely a 
rejoinder to Austin's assumptions of counting numbers. Some little 
bit of sarcasm was supposed to be apparent in my posting.

BTW, I took part in Vancouver's protest march yesterday, for which 
there was also a larger turnout than officials had expected. It was 
fairly dark and drizzly, so photo-ops weren't always the best.

I also noticed that some American papers were reporting numbers 
different than police estimates from those areas, never mind the 
estimates from other sources. The Times reported 200,000 people in 
Berlin, whereas the police estimate was 500,000. Simlar discrepancies 
were evident with respect to other protest numbers.

- -- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html