April 27, 2004

March For Choice

V-Bunny is back, with tales from the DC March For Women's Rights on Sunday. I hope to hear my sister's stories soon, too.

A million people - that means 1 in every 300 Americans were on the Mall. And for each of those million, there's a dozen more who would have liked to be there too. Thank you to all who went.

Comments

Prefacing qualifier: I support everything the people marching stand for. A bunch of people I know and respect and am proud of went, and I'm glad they did.

Now, then...

Exactly what happens with every other march on the mall (or anyplace else) happened here, and it was almost amusing to watch. I am talking, of course, about the numbers game.

Everyone, myself included, immediately wants to know from the people who come back: "How many people were there?"

In this case, the answer from those involved is, seemingly without variation, a million people. The largest march ever, I've heard more than once.

People like the NPS, people not directly involved, generally won't quote numbers of this kind anymore because of the wild variations in the numbers each party gives, and how politically charged the issue of making exact estimates is. "Hundreds of thousands," I heard one official quoted as saying. I think that's safe and fair, because after all, how many people are qualified to look at that many people and make an accurate guess?

It's funny, in a way, that we take polls based on small samples from which it's been shown time and again that we can extrapolate meaningful data. But in this kind of situation, where there are aerial photographs and everything, no two estimates are the same, and many are far, far apart.

I worry about bringing any of this up, because I know people will question my motivation -- "Why is it worth undermining a good cause?" I'm not trying to do that. But I also think it's important to rest on facts and not guesses. And I just don't want people to lose sight of what's important by focusing on these figures too much.

What matters in the end is not if there were 500,000 or a million or 1,250,000, but that there were a hell of a lot of people there, and as you said, many many more who would have gone if they could. Because what really matters is not whether these people were in DC or not, but that they all regularly speak up to their government, the media, and their friends, and most importantly that they vote.

Sorry, you can have your blog back now.

Posted by: Pete at April 27, 2004 03:58 PM

No, you're right. The exact number of people present should not matter as long as people get the idea that it was a hell of a lot, BUT seeing as the news coverage of the event has been woefully miniscule (any extensive coverage on any of the major stations? no. damn right-wing media mogul bastards) having good accurate numbers is important for those who weren't there to give it some weight (and I do believe that there were over a million people there since I was there and there was a hell of a lot of people there). It makes them think, "Wow, there were THAT many people who care about this cause?" I mean, if there was more coverage of the March so that people could accurately assess the hugeness of it, then I wouldn't fret but since there wasn't, got to keep trying to get people to see it for what it was, a huge thing that involved the hopes and voices of a lot of people.

Posted by: V-bunny at April 27, 2004 11:14 PM

I agree, though the picture on the front of the Globe said quite a lot, I think.

This is one of those times when everyone who went down there and saw what they saw and feels the way you do about the coverage needs to write every media outlet and let them know. Your letter on its own may not mean much, but thousands of them will.

Posted by: Pete at April 28, 2004 10:56 AM

Post a comment