Not much coverage of the protest. Is that because the Gathering of Eagles were just as prominent?

Answer 1

lol people who watched the "news" are saying the anti war protesters had a larger group while the people at the event say the number of counter protesters out numbered the anti war crowd by up to 3 to 1

even the parks service estimates the counter protesters were at least 30,000 Strong to the 10,000 anti war group.

it was a non-event the moment the media realized the "massive crowd" was pathetic. and they could not keep feeding us tripe if it was revealed that the majority assembled backed the soldiers and the mission.

I mean seriously how would that look?

Bush's numbers in the tank, unpopularity of the war and Hollywood behind a withdrawal. but the only ones who show up in force were the ones proving it all wrong.

The travesty of it all!

I regret not being able to go, and if it happens again I will do my best to participate.

the vets proved one thing, they have more guts and determination to show up on a cold winter's day than the "dedicated" anti-war movement on what should have been the opportune time to denounce the war.

lol and the far left expects to win when they cant even show up for the fight? pathetic.

Fly high Eagles!

Answer 2

How much coverage of the protest did you want?

According to the Associated Press, the Gathering of Eagles were not "just as prominent," although they were "smaller but still sizable."

[quote] Police no longer give official estimates but said privately that perhaps 10,000 to 20,000 anti-war demonstrators marched, with a SMALLER BUT STILL SIZABLE number of counterprotesters also out in force. An hour into the three-hour Pentagon rally, with the temperature near freezing, protesters had peeled away to a point where fewer than 1,000 were left.

Answer 3

Although CSpan covered the entire "event", I did notice they mentioned the fact that the Gathering of Eagles had numbers equal to the protestors.........maybe the protestors numbers would have been greater if:
1. Several hundred hadn't been arrested the night before for protesting outside the White House (against law)
2. They had managed to keep the dozens of cans of spray paint they had in their possession (that were confiscated)
3. If their mommies would have let them go out to play
4. If they had picked more mature music to play (other than Stevie Wonder)

Answer 4

I think the coverage was lacking because the "massive" protest never really materialized. It would have been the lead story on every network had their been 100,000 or even 50,000 protesters.

From the media's standpoint, how can they continue to say with a straight face that the majority of Americans are against Bush, when the St. Patrick's Day parade upstages the "nationwide protest"?

Answer 5

You betcha on the Gathering of Eagles,God Bless them for a job well done.Guess the pot smoking,unemployed,birkenstock wearing,residual effects of years of acid,hippies didnt think they were going to have opposition.

Answer 6

the 630 was not enough Anti War protesters to make it interesting. Perhaps if Arby's offered a free roast beef sandwich?

Answer 7

Well, the Gathering of Eagles obviously don't think our troops are homicidal baby rapers, so the lib enabling media aren't interested!

Answer 8

Uh no that is because despite the conservative lie, the media is NOT liberally biased otherwise they would have covered the protests more prominently. The media is a government propaganda pushing tool.

Answer 9

What protest? I was golfing all day and I didn't see any terrorist.

Answer 10

I was catching in on fox of course