Is hangten right about the media?Follow

Why the quotes around smugglers? The word is entirely accurate for who they were and what they were doing.

[quote=Compare/contrast the media coverage of those protests to say the various immigration marches and anti-war protests that you've seen in just the last 6 years or so[/quote]The only immigration rallies to receive major treatment were the first ones. They absolutely dwarfed the tea parties in scope. The later, smaller ones were treated much more shallowly in the media.

What would you say to someone who said that the tax hikes on the colonies was to pay for the wars/protection of the colonists by the British army?

Certainly. Again. It wasn't really about the amount of taxes. It was the structure of the taxes. The reason the Tea Parties occurred was because of a set of changes which were very obviously not just about collecting revenue (as someone pointed out already), but about controlling the colonies. More specifically, making it very hard for the colonies to really be self sufficient.

If it was just about maintaining revenue in order to provide protection/governance of the colonies, a local tax structure could have been built which levied taxes on goods produced/sold locally to a local agency, which then used those funds to offset the costs to Britain to maintain security for the colonies. This would have allowed the colonies some measure of self sufficiency and actually cost Britain *less* to do. But King George wanted all control of the colonies to flow directly out of Britain and that sort of system would have put local governors in too much control. Ironically, he was probably attempting to prevent the possibility of a local uprising or separation movement in the colonies, but ended up causing exactly that.

I assume you mean total.

I think the Wash DC Tea Party was somewhere between 250 and 500 people total.

Most were smaller, except in Houston and Southwestern States.

No I'm not recovered enough to go looking for facts, but you would think that all those Tea Parties out west could have had a larger impact, if they had taken time to go to DC, then listen to a governor talk about seceding from the Union.

Yes I'm Bias and know it, still I use several news sources for my information and take it all with a grain of salt. Also if you really want to know what is happening in government learn to read between the lines. I figure out a lot of classify information this way and learn to keep my mouth shut long ago.

It was rather spooky learning I was able to figure things about black boxes just by following the news reports about the Military hardware in local newspapers. Then my local newspapers tend to be The Washington Post and The New York Times.

Around 311k total according to the data collected at Five Thirty Eight.

In contrast, there was a million or more people (1.1mil - 1.5mil depending on source) in the immigration rallies between Dallas, LA and Chicago. Not counting the numerous smaller rallies. Using lowball estimates, I get around 1,410,000 people nationwide using only the largest rallies (2,000+ people) and excluding the smaller ones.

Sorry man, I'd call that "dwarfed".

There's also the fact that Silver was able to collect what looks like at least a hundred news stories with crowd estimates. So it's kind of hard to take you seriously when you say the media wasn't seriously covering the event(s).

Edited, May 12th 2009 5:23pm by Jophiel

All I found with a quick Google was 39 blogs boasting "this will change everything! high five!"

Oh, I'm not doubting there were news stories. I remember seeing some. Just all I found today were self-congratulatory blogs, and one news story about some old lady who fell in.

Protesting is dangerous stuff, yo.

Yes. Total. What's the problem with that. So if a small number of people organize in a large number of locations, it's not a big deal, but if a large number organize in a small number of locations, it is?


The immigration rallies were orchestrated events. The majority of those participating only went to a handful of large cities. Yes. They had large numbers in that handful of cities, but isn't this a microcosm of two different approaches to politics and "the people"? And which is more "grass roots"? The tea parties were not orchestrated by large political groups and designed to generate huge crowds for the cameras. They really were small groups of people each individually participating in something larger.


I just find it odd that the methodology which seems least about individuals expressing themselves seems to be judged to be a more relevant expression of free speech. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the fact that people gathered all across America, in small towns and larger alike to make a common point be pretty darn relevant? It tells us that these ideas cross all regions of the US. This is not just something that people in large cities care about. Now, maybe that's the determining point for those with a liberal mindset, but then isn't that just another example of the bias this thread is about? If the journalists only consider really large groups gathering in major cities to be a relevant protest, then isn't that their own bias showing?


I think so.

An Joph. A protest 1/3rd the size isn't "dwarfed". If we were talking about 10 or 20 times bigger, you'd have a point. Isn't the total number of voices important?

I think so.

Did I say it was a big deal? No, it's a respectable number.

To say it wasn't organized is a bit disingenuous, though, since there are still blogs all over the place begging people to come out and be heard if you hates taxes.

Didn't notice it. We can pretend that's because I just missed it or that it didn't happen or whatever we want. Regardless, you're not making much iof a case when you whine about the media not properly covering your event and then have to say "Well.. not those guys... THOSE GUYS! THOSE GUYS were mean!"

I mean, I saw it reported in editorial/commentary style clips but not during the ten o'clock news. But you insist it happened to... hope you have a nice view from up there on your cross.First off, LERN2MATH. It was closer to 4-5x the size. Secondly, I'm content to call something five times the size of something else as having dwarfed it. Surely we'd admit that someone 25-30' tall dwarfs me at 6'+change? Sorry if it hurt your feelings, though.

Edit: Also, the sudden defensiveness of the phrase "Print news tended to be relatively neutral Joph" made me actually laugh out loud, coming from the "OMG NYT/WAshington Post/LA Times/Etc is the EVIL LIBERAL MEDIA!!!" set

Edited, May 12th 2009 7:06pm by Jophiel

Oh. Let me address this again. Love how you keep using a site run by liberals as some kind of authoritarian source.

The fuck? I'm pretty sure regression analysis doesn't care what your political leanings are. Wrong site to use as an example. Probably the worst possible site to use as an example, actually. See, the data doesn't care. I know you'll never understand this point, but there are people in the world who *start* with the data and see what the outcome is.