 |
| Evidence was about of the women's rally |
A
QUICKIE MULTIPLICATION then gives you a crowd estimate that sounds like it’s
official and scientific. But in a way makes about as much sense as the
so-called rules of crowd estimates that always said a president would draw
100,000 people, an astronaut would get 300,000 and the Pope would draw 1
million people. While Republican political candidates (in Chicago, at least)
would be lucky to draw 10 people.
 |
| Well-mannered crowd let contempt be known |
The
point is that these estimates ought not to be taken too seriously.
Which
is what entranced me about the Chicago version of the women’s march that
occurred Saturday. The crowd got so big that the event originally planned got
overwhelmed.
Organizers
who wanted to have a crowd march from Grant Park to the plaza outside the
federal government buildings for Chicago (about a three-block walk) expected it
would be about 50,000 people.
BUT
IT SEEMS the crowd that actually showed up would have stretched so long that
you would have had some marchers literally arrived at the destination and
waiting for followers while others would have been waiting for their chance to
start marching.
 |
| Jessica, my niece, makes her view known. Photographs of rally provided by Vicki Magginnis-Burnett |
Which
probably makes a certain level of sense. Personally, I’d think a chance for
people to gather and listen to speakers would make more of a physical
impression than people walking through the streets.
 |
| Taste of 'Hamilton' for those who can't get tickets |
Which
would have the potentially negative impact of irritating passing pedestrians
and possibly making some of them into Trump backers. Or maybe just crochety old
people upset that their business downtown was interfered with?
SO
SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 150,000 and 250,000 people (two of whom were my sister-in-law Vicki and teenage niece Jessica) was enough to overwhelm Chicago, and make us the national
exception. Other cities were capable of doing marches, particularly in the
District of Columbia.
Where
it seems the official amount is 470,000 people. Which march organizers are
claiming is more people than showed up for the Inaugural ceremonies held Friday
for the beginning of the Trump presidency. Which we’ll never know for sure
because federal officials are refusing to provide a figure for the number of people who showed up to see Donald J. take the oath of office.
Which
may be a responsible thing to do.
Thinking
of this event brought to mind the most recent large-scale event – the World
Series parade and rally following the Chicago Cubs’ victory in early November.
Five-Million-People is the officially recognized stat for that event.
NOW
I REALIZE the Cubs’ rally was a stationary event, rather than a moving march.
Which means it would be natural for more people to be present for baseball
rather than showing contempt for the man they will forevermore refer to as
Donald Drumpf (allegedly, that was once the family name).
But
do we really believe the Cubs gain greater significance because of the
concocted figure? Which always struck me as being something concocted by
insecure fans who want history to record their World Series-winning rally as
being bigger than the one held for the Chicago White Sox (which allegedly drew
1.75 million people) back in 2005.
 |
| The new expert in the field of crowd estimates? |
The
point of crowd estimates is often to provide a “fact” meant to reinforce
whatever stance was being asserted by a particular group. Personally, I only
offer crowd estimates when I report a story if it is possible that I can do a
count for myself.
At
least then, a reader can merely question my cipherin’ abilities (remember the
Jethro Bodine gazintas?). None of these figures ought to be taken any more
seriously than that.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment