Comparing Trump's inauguration crowd to the Women's March

>Some differences to note: Trump's speech was on the West Front of the Capitol, which was at capacity on Friday. It was cordoned off and empty on Saturday as protesters gathered on the Mall.

>On the other hand, the Women's March filled the streets around the mall. Those streets were closed to Trump supporters.

>His inauguration was on Jan. 20, because of the Constitution, which this year occurred on a Friday. The Women's March was on Saturday, when more people are off work.

>Metro, Washington's subway system, tweeted Saturday there were 275,000 trips taken Saturday by 11 a.m.

>Another important point: Both events are occurring in an area opposed to Trump. Washington, D.C. voted overwhelmingly against Trump last November. He got just 4.1% of the vote in the nation's capital. He also lost the surrounding states of Maryland by 25 percentage points and Virginia by nearly 5 percentage points. It would be a longer trip for a critical mass of Trump supporters than for a critical mass of marchers.

>It should also be noted that marchers took to the streets in other cities, nationwide, and in cities around the world.

I don't remember comparisons of crowd sizes being discussed before this election

Do you think that there's people who either just vote democrat or republican without every changing their whole lives?

>>102214
Yes

>>102214
Of course, those people are almost as ignorant as the day they were born. They never changed, never grew up: just grew big and useless and believing lies and bs from exhibitionists (actors, pretenders, posers, fakes). It's hilarious that the performers, whose whole life is about people putting words in and out their mouths for money, are throwing in their mindless dribble. As if actors will ever do or say anything of consequence, except to the ninnies who apparently can't identify stupid.

>>102213

Donald Trump loves arguing about crowd sizes, so it's not surprising that it is being discussed this time around even though nobody gave a fuck for literally hundreds of years before. This wouldn't even be a topic of debate if he didn't literally send out his press secretary to make his first press briefing about crowd sizes, as well as make it a part of his speech at the CIA. Like most of his problems, he literally brought this upon himself.

>>102214

There obviously are, though the odds of it go down as they get older (and therefore have more elections to change their mind). I wouldn't be surprised if this election was a combo breaker for many of them, both Democrat and Republican.

>>102235
Idiot A: raised on god, guns and America
Idiot B: raised on love, freedom and the world

What motivates an idiot to change parties? Some revelation that only people that meet your standards have?

There's nothing wrong with lifelong party dedication. You're confusing parties with issues. Issues change with time, and so should the parties.

>>102237
>Donald Trump loves arguing about crowd sizes, so it's not surprising that it is being discussed this time around even though nobody gave a fuck for literally hundreds of years before
My post was about the press comparing inauguration crowd sizes being a new phenomena. I agree that Trump talking about his crowds a lot is probably what prompted this but I don't think it's something the press really should be involved in. When a candidate running for president compares something about his campaign to his opponent's campaign that's just politics, but when the press does it that's just bad journalism. You say nobody gave a fuck but I think it's just that no politician thought of using crowd size as something to compare themselves with.
>This wouldn't even be a topic of debate if he didn't literally send out his press secretary to make his first press briefing about crowd sizes, as well as make it a part of his speech at the CIA. Like most of his problems, he literally brought this upon himself.
Actually this was a topic of debate prior to the press briefing. One of the most popular tweets about the inauguration was that comparison pic between inaugurations and it was picked up by the press quickly. The press briefing was in response to that "news" that was being reported on.

>>102244
Also I should add, the press is the thing continuing this crowd comparison theme with the march. Trump and his administration never talked about the comparison between his inauguration's crowd and the march. I guess the press caught onto the political power of the crowd comparison that Trump harnessed in his campaign. That's what seems slimy about it, the press shouldn't be engaging in this sort of stuff.

>>102245
>>102244

>I agree that Trump talking about his crowds a lot is probably what prompted this but I don't think it's something the press really should be involved in.

But that's the thing, if a presidential nominee talks about it, then the press will talk about it. If the presidential candidate of the Republican party talks about it, then of course the press will report on it. If the President-elect of the United States is still crowing about his crowds, then the press will cover it. It should not be surprising that the press will continue to cover crowd numbers under the now President of the United States since it has been a running theme for over a year at this point.

Plus the fact he deemed it wholly necessary to respond (as President of the United States no less) to this further reinforces that this is something worth covering. This is a story that would have died relatively quickly and without ceremony but instead, because Trump is incapable of ignoring anything critical of him no matter how minor, the story lives on to embarrass him further.

>One of the most popular tweets about the inauguration was that comparison pic between inaugurations and it was picked up by the press quickly.

The news media reports on things that are happening, and they want to be in on the whole "social media phenomenon" so they'll report on that too even though it would normally be inconsequential. And if it provokes the US President, even better, because that's more news to report in the cycle. They literally have no incentive not to report on this, since it generates viewership and generates more content for additional viewership, which of course means more money.

>>102247
>But that's the thing, if a presidential nominee talks about it, then the press will talk about it. If the presidential candidate of the Republican party talks about it, then of course the press will report on it. If the President-elect of the United States is still crowing about his crowds, then the press will cover it. It should not be surprising that the press will continue to cover crowd numbers under the now President of the United States since it has been a running theme for over a year at this point.

But Trump never talked about the inaugural crowd size before the press did. I know he talked about the general topic of crowd size but that was about his rallies, this is a different thing.

>Plus the fact he deemed it wholly necessary to respond (as President of the United States no less) to this further reinforces that this is something worth covering. This is a story that would have died relatively quickly and without ceremony but instead, because Trump is incapable of ignoring anything critical of him no matter how minor, the story lives on to embarrass him further.

Now you're being slimy imo. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the fact that this can be used to embarrass him made this story worth covering. It wasn't news itself, the reaction to the "news" was the real news. I mean it seems like you're encouraging the media to bait the administration to do bad moves. How is that helpful at all?

>>102247
>The news media reports on things that are happening, and they want to be in on the whole "social media phenomenon" so they'll report on that too even though it would normally be inconsequential. And if it provokes the US President, even better, because that's more news to report in the cycle. They literally have no incentive not to report on this, since it generates viewership and generates more content for additional viewership, which of course means more money.

I know that the press reports on things happening in social media but everything that happens on social media isn't news. Especially not the type of news that is important enough to be covered during the inauguration itself since there's so much other stuff going on. Seriously the rest of what you're saying seems like you agree with throwing out journalistic standards and just do what generates more money. You say they have no incentive not to report that, how about journalistic integrity? Shouldn't that be important too?

>>102254
Also I should add that Obama's first inauguration was uncommonly well attended compared to previous inaugurations. Comparing stuff to an outlier is never a fair comparison.

>>102244
>I don't think it's something the press really should be involved in
Why not? Since when has this been out of bounds?
The crowds at previous inaugurations were yuge. One thing i noticed from the vision from the external cameras shared by all the live broadcast media was the large gaps in the crowd.
It didn't require media comment, it was obvious.
>that's just bad journalism
You are entitled to your own opinion, no matter if is intended to set yourself up as the sole arbiter of media matters.
>press briefing was in response
Sean Spicer's tone with the media was the same shameful, thin skinned, petulant behavior we expect of his boss. Behaving like children.

>>102253

>But Trump never talked about the inaugural crowd size before the press did.

But he established precedent, so despite not talking about the inaugural crowd everyone knows that this was an important thing for him. For example, if I talk about how fresh my food is every meal, people will assume that freshness is important to me and will bring it up at the next meal even if I don't speak first.

>I know he talked about the general topic of crowd size but that was about his rallies, this is a different thing.

And it is not a different thing, as both are measures of his support and popularity, something which he clearly cares deeply about.

>If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the fact that this can be used to embarrass him made this story worth covering.
>I mean it seems like you're encouraging the media to bait the administration to do bad moves.

When the president holds a fucking press briefing on the subject, specifically his very first press briefing, he is elevating the topic from "social media news that goes away in 24 hours" to "holy shit the president is talking about it." What the president talks about becomes news. He could talk about the quality of his morning bathroom break, and that would suddenly become news even though it should literally not matter at all.

That's the core of what I'm arguing, that his choice to respond makes this news. The president must choose his battles: not everything is worth responding to, and when you do chose to respond, the tone and optics in which you provide that reply must be considered. This is a specific case where he should have chosen not to reply, or if he TRULY needed to reply, he should have not chosen the method and tone that he did.

>>102254

>You say they have no incentive not to report that, how about journalistic integrity? Shouldn't that be important too?

Journalistic integrity should matter and it still does, but social media reporting doesn't hurt it sufficiently for it to also hurt economically. After all, if it's trending it must matter to somebody, and if it's not trending then it's not important enough to report on. At the end of the day, it's still a business, and we still live in a free-market economy, so unless there is a significant push to avoid reporting on social media events there will still be reporting on the matter.

>>102254

>Also I should add that Obama's first inauguration was uncommonly well attended compared to previous inaugurations. Comparing stuff to an outlier is never a fair comparison.

See, and in a well crafted response (if one was needed at all) this would have been included.

"Despite our inauguration being less historically exciting than the election of the first African American president, our turnout was incredible. Despite the weather, new security measures, and travel costs, our supporters came from across the nation to see the inauguration. To all those who could not make it because of those reasons, we hope you still enjoyed the proceedings from your home and are still dedicated to making America great again."

This sort of statement acknowledges the reality of the situation while still putting a positive spin on it. Just put it out there on Trump's favorite platform of twitter or, since he now has access to the White House press apparatus, some other low-key channel.

Instead he held a full press briefing where Spicer rambled off incorrect numbers and sounded like a whiny baby.

>>102259
>>102263
>>102265
you're not willing to give any ground on your positions so I won't carry this on. I'm not trying to defend he Trump administration's actions, I'm just trying to hold the press to a higher standard than you.

>>102275
So we are intransigent?
Could it be that you are just plain wrong?
Looking to hold the media to an artificial standard of your own making that doesn't exist in the real world?
>you're not willing to give any ground on your positions
hahahaha

>>102287
>hahahaha
what did the author mean by this?

>>102275

And I am trying to hold the administration to a higher standard (which is the normal standard, but even that seems to be difficult for the administration). These two things go hand in hand, if the news media can get free news out of cheap shots, they'll take cheap shots. If the administration rises above it like the previous ones, then the cheap shots stop and the standard of the press rises.

There have always been these small stories and most of the time such stories simply die on their own, not even picked up major news outlets outside of maybe a brief mention on the evening news, only to be forgotten by the next day. Only those that were significantly persistent or particularly outrageous would be picked up by the mainstream media and possibly get a response from the administration, and even then the tone and tenor would be expertly calculated to help put the story to bed.

If the Trump Inauguration crowd size was actually 250,000, or 100,000, or 400,000, the Trump people would assure us it was 1.5 million. Reality doesn't matter anymore.

>>102244
>My post was about the press comparing inauguration crowd sizes being a new phenomena.
It isn't though. Comparisons about crowd numbers at events has been fought in the media for ages. Re: the number of islamists marching for sharia law in London about 5 years back - they claimed thousands, cam footage showed mere dozens concentrated so their numbers could be hidden on the selfies they took.

Some media also underreport crowd sizes to further agendas; like the official word on the occupy and environmental marches when the street and air cameras showed far bigger numbers attending.

Biases tend to surface for all to see where numbers are involved.

>>102341
Your entire post started off with a sneaky switch from "comparing inauguration crowds" to "comparisons about crowd numbers". the post you responded to is about inaug crowd sizes so your post about crowd sizes in general does not dispute the claim that comparing inaug crowd sizes is a new phenomena.

>>102244
Anon in another thread made a good point about the crowd sizes >>102390:

> The media is generally leaving out the point of general media bias called out for in this press conference, but do you think the media should be worrying about retweeting crowd sizes and using "slightly" misrepresenting photos to further a narrative?
The point Spicer was trying to make was dwarfed by his blatant lies. Additionally, the angry and combative attitude of Spicer is very uncommon in press conferences. Even using this platform for discussing such things is uncommon. I don't think the press should have initially ran with stories about these crowd comparison photos (especially since Obama's first inaug crowd size was record breaking so future crowds were bound to regress towards the mean). It's true that the press ran with these stories to further the narrative that "no one likes trump", but it's also true that the press covers topics that are being discussed on social media and these comparison photos were among the most popular topics on social media.

>>102193
>Comparing a work day to a weekend

Are people really this stupid?
Whats next comparing a non-event day to an event day then wonder why more people showed up a event

>>102412
>People don't have time off to use as they please

????

>>102392
So this is the talking point you're going with?
>incapable of original thought
>living in denial
>still adheres to DJT even though he is manifestly a delusional douche

>>102456
Why do you people want to fight so much?

>>102475
maybe because it looks like usa is becoming north korea
speaking as an outsider

>>102542
do you have eyes?

>>102193
Go trump! dont let the fake news get you

>>102193
And how many were at Hillary's, right it doesn't matter.

>>102581
it would help if he didn't draw so much attention to it himself.

or maybe that's his plan?

seeing as how he is a walking, breathing conflict of interests, and the press seems to lap-up and sensationalize the slightest non-issue he engineers, maybe he's a genius or at least got some genius behind him; he's just fatiguing the electorate with controversy after controversy in hopes of desensitizing people.

If he actually fucks up the economy in the process, folks might start paying attention again, but he probably has a strategy for that, like blame the foreigners.

>>102193
The fuck is the point of this shit beyond validating a nicely-worded popularity contest mentality?

"I had more people in my picture than you did in yours." Congratu-fucking-lations. What's the point? Is this really the pressing coverage of the Trump administration we want to reward here? CNN validating mob tactics?

Just another thread showing how fucking low /news/ is rapidly plummeting.

>>102677
Trump has NPD, he requires narcissistic supply

The point is to show him how unpopular he is, in the hope that he might learn something

>>102684
he was literally just inaugurated as president of the united states i don't think he gives a shit

>>102685
Sure he doesn't, that's why he went on full damage control giving his rambling speech about the press and then when that didn't work he sent Sean Spicer out to do the same thing again

It's working alright

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/823500708204998656

>Busy week planned with a heavy focus on jobs & national security. Top executives coming in at 9 A.M. to talk manufacturing in America. -DJT

>>102690
>Busy week planned with a heavy focus on complaining about the media and Chuck Schumer holding up nominees. Top Wall Street executive friends of Trump's coming in at 9.A.M. to talk tax breaks for the rich. -DJT*
*ftfy

>>102684
>Trump has NPD
Along with more than half of the millennial generation taking part in this charade of a march. I fail to see how trolling a thin-skinned politician is worth making the American media even more of a farce worthy of mockery than it already is. It's almost as if CNN is pretending to be retarded to show us information we already know.

Yet another instance of two institutions/people going at each other and making me wish the country would just collapse on itself already. This shit is pathetic on both sides and everyone giving it legitimate attention is only validating the stupidity.