CNN and the size of the march

[Bill McBlueState]

There's been a lot of complaining regarding CNN's reporting on the size of the March for Women's Lives. They have the following paragraph leading their story:

Abortion-rights supporters marched in the hundreds of thousands Sunday, galvanized by what they see as an erosion of reproductive freedoms under President Bush and policies that hurt women worldwide.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/25/abortion.protest.ap/index.html

Isn't "hundreds of thousands" accurate? The organizers estimated 1.15 million, which is the same as eleven and a half hundred thousand. The next step above "hundreds of thousands" would be "millions" and that's not accurate when there are less than 2 million in attendance.

I guess my points are,

1.15 million is a hell of a lot of people (1 in every 250 Americans!)

and

Let's not get on CNN's case unless they actually screwed it up. It hurts our credibility otherwise.

[LittleApple81]

1. But why don't they say "an estimated 1.15 million" (in case they

are not positive about the exactness of the figure?) Hundreds of thousands could also be 300,000...
You can always slant the news in the direction you prefer...

[newyorican]

2. By that measure...

dozens would also be accurate, however misleading...

(about 100,000 dozen to be exact)

Unless you are looking to mislead, the accurate term is "over 1 million".

[Bill McBlueState]

4. so you pick the most accurate term

Dozens is accurate, but *if you're using an order of magnitude estimate* hundreds of thousands is the most accurate phrase available.

CNN could also say "an estimated 1.15 million" but I don't think we should expect them to automatically report whatever the organizers tell them. We may hear that phrase at some point, but we shouldn't get angry if they decide to estimate a number that can't be determined exactly.

They could also say "approximately a million" which they may well do.

But I don't think anyone's being slighted when they say "hundreds of thousands" to describe *twelve* hundred thousand.

Sure beats the "tens of thousands" we heard earlier.

[nofurylike]

6. they knew full well it was OVER A MILLION. always diminished, womyn.n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. How did they know that?

There is no official unbiased count.

[redwitch]

3. BBC site says estimates at "more than 100,000"

It will be interesting to see what the local papers carry tomorrow. Nothing they say will dim my excitement at what was obviously a great event of our lifetime. Uppity people unite!

[Bill McBlueState]

7. it's interesting, the connotations numbers carry

If I hear "more than 100,000" I think the number is between 100,000 and 200,000. So the BBC number seems misleading to me.

If I hear "hundreds of thousands" that seems to indicate somewhere between 200,000 and 2 million.

Neither one gives a particularly accurate picture, but at the same time, neither one smacks of some conspiracy to diminish the impact of the march.

Hopefully lots of photos will be published so people really get the point!

[Changenow]

14. It is also true to say that there were more than 2 people there,

just not very informative.

[Robbien]

5. They gave the march about sixty seconds of air time. That's why.

When you have a million people marching, a responsible news station would give it more time. But CNN didn't, so they minimized the number to justify themselves.

[Bill McBlueState]

8. the amount of coverage is a legitimate beef

Hell yeah, they should give it more than sixty seconds of air time.

But it's splitting hairs to say that "hundreds of thousands" is an inaccurate way to describe a rally with 1.2 million.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. The size of 1.15 million is a big guess

Hundreds of thousands is easily accurate.

I've never seen a modern D.C. march that didn't make grandiose claims.

[tibbiit]

13. Imo

its a matter of perception.
once again showing cnn marching hand in hand with bushco's supreme ability to color and name perceptions for the people.

hundreds of thousands means a couple hundred thousand, not close to or at 1,000,000 people. It "sounds" like "less than".
Isnt this elementary?
tib

[lovedems]

9. Why don't they mention that this march made history?

It was either the largest pro-choice march in history or the LARGEST march in history period!

By the counts from the march this afternoon, it was a history making event either way! No mention of that...

[ikojo]

10. At least they said HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS instead of

TENS of thousands. In the past the corporate media have tried to minimize the size of crowds by saying tens of thousands or just thousands.