Inaguration crowd size

[Bill the Cat]

OTOH, according to Nielsen ratings Trump's inauguration was the second most watched one on TV since Reagan (the record holder): http://ew.com/tv/2017/01/21/trump-inauguration-ratings/

And Neilsen didn't count streaming views either, which far more happens now than 4 years ago.

[Bill the Cat]

I saw it with my own eyes. It was less. But Obama's election was seen as uniquely historical and exciting. It was the first black president and all. We probably won't see a uniquely ecstatic turn out like that until the first female president sometime in the future.

The weather for Obama's was also better.

[Mountain Man]

I saw it with my own eyes. It was less. But Obama's election was seen as uniquely historical and exciting. It was the first black president and all. We probably won't see a uniquely ecstatic turn out like that until the first female president sometime in the future.

I think you missed the point of the opening post. I'm not disputing that Obama's first inauguration was a larger draw. I'm simply pointing out that Trump's crowd was much larger than the media is deceptively reporting.

[Starlight]

What you'll mostly see at fake news sites like CNN are bait-and-switch comparisons of photos taken before Trump's inauguration when the crowd was still arriving versus photos taken during Obama's inauguration when the crowd was at its peak.

I'm simply pointing out that Trump's crowd was much larger than the media is deceptively reporting.

As usual you're absolutely full of it. Here is a time-lapse covering the crowd beginning to arrive through to them leaving:

The largest crowd is at about the ~48 second mark in the timelapse. As can be seen by comparison to the photos of Trump's inauguration crowds being used by CNN etc, it can be verified that the mainstream media are indeed accurately using photos of Trump's inauguration crowds at their peak.

Now, I think an interesting question is to ask what it is about the psychology of Trump and his supporters that makes them desperately insecure about the size of the crowd, such that they desperately lie to themselves and others about the crowd size? Trump's press secretary in his first press conference, instead of discussing what official orders Trump had signed on his first day in office and how these actions played into the MAGA theme, instead attacked the media for accurately reporting inauguration crowds in a rant that contained multiple easily-disprovable falsehoods. To 'rescue' the situation, Kellanne Conway then told the media that the Trump team were using "alternative facts" which pretty much says it all. Why are Trump's team and his supporters so desperately insecure about the fact that his inauguration crowd wasn't record breaking, to the point where they feel the need to lie about it?

[Darth Ovious]

Sorry to break it to you, but you're still all those things.

Sorry to break it to you but the more you throw those "things" around like candy then the more you devalue those words and the more you make people sick of your attitude.

[Darth Ovious]

As usual you're absolutely full of it. Here is a time-lapse covering the crowd beginning to arrive through to them leaving:

The largest crowd is at about the ~48 second mark in the timelapse. As can be seen by comparison to the photos of Trump's inauguration crowds being used by CNN etc, it can be verified that the mainstream media are indeed accurately using photos of Trump's inauguration crowds at their peak.

Now, I think an interesting question is to ask what it is about the psychology of Trump and his supporters that makes them desperately insecure about the size of the crowd, such that they desperately lie to themselves and others about the crowd size? Trump's press secretary in his first press conference, instead of discussing what official orders Trump had signed on his first day in office and how these actions played into the MAGA theme, instead attacked the media for accurately reporting inauguration crowds in a rant that contained multiple easily-disprovable falsehoods. To 'rescue' the situation, Kellanne Conway then told the media that the Trump team were using "alternative facts" which pretty much says it all. Why are Trump's team and his supporters so desperately insecure about the fact that his inauguration crowd wasn't record breaking, to the point where they feel the need to lie about it?

The PBS video has been proven false. They edited the video around the 46 second mark.

Here is a link to a GIF that shows the moment they edited it.

http://i.imgur.com/gzITXlU.gif

Here is another pic disproving it.

8SIzeMB.jpg8SIzeMB.jpg

And ironically even CNN's own gigapixel image disproves this.

http://i.imgur.com/RKrJ6CR.jpg

You really are a sucker for fake news starlight, aren't you?

[Starlight]

The PBS video has been proven false. They edited the video around the 46 second mark.

Goodness, you have conspiracy theories to answer everything don't you.
So, you think that all the different media organisations were so out to get Trump that they all agreed to deliberately alter their various videos and photos of the crowd? Wow. You're nuts.

Edited to add: I've just gone to the effort of comparing CNN's gigapixel image with their Obama comparison shot and the two are very similar in terms of the number of people they depict, which shows that the original CNN image circulated was indeed taken reasonably close to the maximum crowd size and wasn't any sort of deliberate attempt to under-depict the crowd. Your conspiracy theory is thus provably false, which is unsurprising.

[Darth Ovious]

Goodness, you have conspiracy theories to answer everything don't you.
So, you think that all the different media organisations were so out to get Trump that they all agreed to deliberately alter their various videos and photos of the crowd? Wow. You're nuts.

AND YET........ you completely ignore the pictures that prove this wrong, including CNN's interactive gigapixel picture. Seriously, there is no way that you can take the position you have without coming off as just being a troll, but I guess everyone here already knows that.

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2...inkId=33634595

[rogue06]

And Neilsen didn't count streaming views either, which far more happens now than 4 years ago.

The report my link went to notes that:

Source: Trump inauguration ratings second biggest in 36 years

And actually, Trump could have been seen by more viewers than either Obama or Reagan. Nielsen ratings do not account for online viewing, which has grown sharply in recent years and is far more commonplace than even four years ago. CNN.com, for example, clocked 16.9 million live streams, tying with its Election Day coverage for the site’s top event (live stream tallies are typically not apples-to-apples with Nielsen’s strict methodology of counting average viewers, but are still additive). Plus, portals like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter offered live streams as well.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

[Leonhard]

You were there?

Nah, but there was live coverage for hours by danish reporters. They did try to figure out an estimate for the crowd size and agreed that it was huge, though not quite that of Obama's and discussed some of the reasons that may be. In general, they had a good and neutral reporting, covering also some of the violence of the leftist protests.

[JimL]

The media is making a lot of noise about how Trump's inaugural crowd was smaller than Obama's. Fair enough. Obama drew a record-breaking crowd to his first inauguration for a number of reasons (but largely because Democrats made a concerted effort to get as many people to the inauguration as possible, and the media spent weeks hyping the ceremony). What the media isn't telling you is that Trump's draw was well above average since the inauguration was moved to the west side of the Capital building and second only to Obama's record-breaking turnout.

Reagan (1981):
[ATTACH=CONFIG]20479[/ATTACH]

Bush (1989):
[ATTACH=CONFIG]20488[/ATTACH]

Clinton (1992):
[ATTACH=CONFIG]20485[/ATTACH]

Clinton (1997):
[ATTACH=CONFIG]20480[/ATTACH]

Bush (2001):
[ATTACH=CONFIG]20484[/ATTACH]

Bush (2005):
[ATTACH=CONFIG]20481[/ATTACH]

Trump (2017):
[ATTACH=CONFIG]20486[/ATTACH]

What you'll mostly see at fake news sites like CNN are bait-and-switch comparisons of photos taken before Trump's inauguration when the crowd was still arriving versus photos taken during Obama's inauguration when the crowd was at its peak. Maybe Trump would be more accommodating to the media if they weren't so blatantly dishonest.

The media isn't making a lot of noise about this, they're just reporting a fact, a fact which seems to be of much importance to Trump and his supporters. Trump just can't accept facts unless they reflect positively on him, facts like Russian Hacking and interference in the election, facts about his fraudulent business practices, facts about his fraudulent charity, his fraudulent University, facts about his discriminatory practices, facts about his illegally employing undocumented immigrants and then not paying them, facts about his being born with a silver spoon in his mouth, facts about his adultery and misogyny, facts about Obama's birth place, facts about Obama's educational background, or facts about the size of his crowds, or his hands! But hey, he figures that so long as he can get you to not the accept the facts as well, he'll be okay.

[Mountain Man]

AND YET........ you completely ignore the pictures that prove this wrong, including CNN's interactive gigapixel picture. Seriously, there is no way that you can take the position you have without coming off as just being a troll, but I guess everyone here already knows that.

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2...inkId=33634595

Dimbulb had to deliberately ignore a number of pictures posted throughout this thread to not be suspicious of that PBS time-lapse (not to mention the number of obvious edits throughout the video itself). I'm not sure what bothers me more: his willful ignorance, or his blatant intellectual dishonesty.

[JimL]

I'm not sure what bothers me more: his willful ignorance, or his blatant intellectual dishonesty.

The irony continues.

[Mountain Man]

The irony continues.

Please don't post in my thread if you don't have anything meaningful to contribute.

[Mountain Man]

The media isn't making a lot of noise about this, they're just reporting a fact....

As you can see from the pictures in the opening post, and in the pictures that Darth Ovious has posted, and in CNN's interactive gigapixel image, Trump's inaugural crowd is significantly larger than what has been gleefully reported by the media. The popular image showing the Mall 3/4 full was obviously taken some time before the inauguration had even started, because every image taken during the inauguration -- including CNN's interactive panorama -- shows that the Mall was densely packed from the steps of the Capital to the base of the Washington Monument.

Here's a picture taken during President Trump's inaugural address:

slider4trump_k8mwk.jpeg

Here's a closer view taken from CNN's gigapixel photo:

Screen Shot 2017-01-23 at 8.31.58 AM.jpg

Now tell me how that squares with this image that has been posted on a number of fake news sites:

0122-donald-trump-inauguration-2017-reuters-4.jpg

If you look closely at the last image above, you can easily make out streams of people arriving at the time the photo was taken, meaning it was not taken during the inauguration ceremony! The facts are clear, but that hasn't stopped fake news connoisseurs like you and Dimbulb from buying into the lies.