March 15, 2009

Cincy Tea Party Pics (Update: Vid Added)

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 7:35 pm

Topside update: Reports from local bloggers who were there, with great pics all around — DADvocate, Right Wing Nut Job, Doses of Reality, (March 16 add) Invincible Armor.

The indispensable FreeRepublic.com has this thread.

Topside Update II: Local media coverage — Enquirer (though its Politics blog had no advance indication of the event), WCPO last night (more on this report at this Monday post), WLWT, WXIX, WKRC (see discussion of certain of these reports in the comments).
______________________________________

Note: Congrats, appreciation, and intense gratitude to all who took time from things they usually do on Sundays to attend Cincinnati’s Tea Party (official link here) from one who could not be there, and to those who supplied pics.

I’m seeing crowd estimates in the 3,000 – 6,000 range (event organizers say they can confirm 5,000). Below is an aerial view at Michelle Malkin’s related post that supports the high-end crowd size estimate. If you have ever been to Fountain Square, you’ll know how impressive the picture really is.

UpdateThe YouTube vid below also supports the high-end estimate; also see this YouTube of the speech by David Watkins; Update 2 – A large photo gallery is here (HT Instapundit, who also has posts here on the event coverage and here on national tea party coverage) –

CincyTPfromMichelleMaerialview

I plan a post early in the morning about the Tea Party and the local media coverage.

In the meantime, you can click on the following thumbnails to see pics that will open in a new window or tab:

CincyTPpict0466 CincyTP100_0510 CincyTP100_0509 CincyTP100_0514

CincyTPpict0490 CincyTPpict0505 CincyTPpict0427 CincyTPpict0452

CincyTP100_0514 CincyTP00150

Virtuous Republic has a great on-the-scene report with lot of pics, plus an update on the credibility of a WCPO reporter’s claim (repeated here) that “a small isolated group of angry people, many of whom who said they were frustrated with the media, caused WCPO’s crew to leave the event early.”

________________________________________________

(Original post) Via an e-mailer:

– A sign refutes Obama math:

CincyTP00124

–  People dedicated to the wrong cause can ruin things quickly:

CincyTP00125

– A view of what has to be a portion of the crowd, but by no means the whole crowd (Update: The e-mailer tells me that this pic was taken an hour before the festivities began):

CincyTP00129

Share

30 Comments

  1. I was down there this afternoon. Very large crowd. Well behaved. Gives one a little hope.

    Comment by Machiavelli — March 15, 2009 @ 8:52 pm

  2. Tom,

    Have you heard anything about some teabaggers and a WCPO crew?

    “Unfortunately a small isolated group of angry people, many of whom who said they were frustrated with the media, caused WCPO’s crew to leave the event early.”

    http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/Cincinnati-Tea-Party-Demonstrates-Downtown/QjyeJF5u3Emp_dJSU9HiYw.cspx

    Comment by Tony B. — March 15, 2009 @ 11:32 pm

  3. Yes, it was a fantastic event!! Beautiful, blue skies, and a HUGE peaceful crowd with some important messages for the Obamafia!

    Comment by KYgal — March 16, 2009 @ 12:31 am

  4. #2, I’d be more impressed if a TV CAMERA crew had video. How can they NOT?

    Comment by TBlumer — March 16, 2009 @ 12:34 am

  5. TBlumer, That’s the question of the day! How can the media continue to ignore this tidal wave of protest? Makes me want to hook a jumbo screen TV to the van and drive around showing YouTube videos of Tea Parties around the country!!!

    Comment by KYgal — March 16, 2009 @ 3:24 am

  6. Thanks for the link to my photos. I hope that the momentum can keep going and we can start getting larger and larger rallies. It’s time we’re no longer the silent majority!!!

    Comment by RWNJ — March 16, 2009 @ 6:24 am

  7. TBlumer, That’s the question of the day! How can the media continue to ignore this tidal wave of protest? Makes me want to hook a jumbo screen TV to the van and drive around showing YouTube videos of Tea Parties around the country!!!
    OH! You’re my new favorite blogger fyi

    Comment by KYgal — March 16, 2009 @ 6:36 am

  8. [...] photos and reports, plus video, at [...]

    Pingback by Instapundit » Blog Archive » THE CINCINNATI TEA PARTY IS UNDERWAY, and a reader sends this photo via Blackberry. Also, rea… — March 16, 2009 @ 7:04 am

  9. Look at the picture taken from the 17th floor of the US Bank building and tell me how many people the media would say attended if that was an anti-war rally in 2003. My guess is either 10,000 or 20,000. I’m not saying that the number was that hight, just noting the double standard. Channel 12, in one of the station breaks, said something like 1,200. Give me a freaking break!

    Comment by Michael — March 16, 2009 @ 8:06 am

  10. Sent a protest letter off to Bill fee-WCPO Manager.This was great such enthusiasm and this was what our ancestors had in mind! I grew up with the revolutionary spirit hearing tales of my esteemed ancestor who served in 3 different regiments in the original revolution. I would like to think he is honored by his gr gr+++ grandaughter for participating inthis democratic process!

    Don’t forget to mail those teabags guys-

    Thanks to all the Sepakers for giving up their family time and Sunday and of COurse Mike for spearheading the local ‘party’!!!!!

    LadyDar

    Comment by LadyDar — March 16, 2009 @ 9:51 am

  11. MSM conspiracy! WXIX seems to confirm WCPO’s reporting:

    “Television reporters and photographers left an area of the protest when a group of hostile people got in their faces, but the event appeared to be generally trouble-free.”

    http://www.fox19.com/global/story.asp?s=10011261

    WCPO now reports that the small group “began to threaten the safety of WCPO’s crew.”

    Comment by Tony B. — March 16, 2009 @ 11:28 am

  12. The MSM conspiracy thickens! WKRC also confirms WCPO’s reporting:

    “Several members of the media, including Local 12′s reporter, had to seek police protection when a small group of people began harassing them. Several reporters and photographers were chased, spat on, and verbally harassed. No one was arrested.”

    http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/Tea-Party-Protesters-Angry-Over-Stimulus/APT0AtMFz0KPlQEyo26n_Q.cspx

    Comment by Tony B. — March 16, 2009 @ 12:38 pm

  13. #11 & #12, seems to me that they didn’t have to leave if they had the confidence of police protection. If true, that’s a big chink in the story, IMO. This is approaching people being afraid of their own shadow. I wonder how many station crews were less than a mile north in OTR during the riots?

    Also, isn’t it strange that WCPO reports on the event as if they were still there even though they report having been chased away? (unless “WCPO’s crew” is supposed to be only the camera crew and truck, and not the reporter himself; if so, he should have been clear about that)

    I’ve requested a response or official statement from WCPO.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 16, 2009 @ 12:48 pm

  14. So the headline should have been “MSM Requires Police Protection to Report on Tea Party?” Or “Tea Party Safer Than OTR During Riots?”

    By all reports this protest was “anger” driven.

    Comment by Tony B. — March 16, 2009 @ 1:14 pm

  15. #14, you act as if anger is not a legitimate emotion.

    Why shouldn’t someone be angry that Washington as a whole, but especially the current admin, is selling out our kids and grandkids at a rate no previous admin has dared even contemplate?

    As to MSM, there are thousands of attendees and hundreds of cameras, and yet no one has any verbal report or visual documentation of what happened?

    As to “police protection,” I wonder if it was “boo hoo, these people are calling me names.” Fact is, if the cops are there, and someone steps out of line, they make an arrest or escort the offenders away from the offended.

    The headline is “weenies more scared of a few (possibly) ill-mannered people among thousands of great Americans than they are of rock- and bottle-throwing hoodlums in a lawless atmosphere.”

    The WCPO person I talked to said that “99.9%” of the people there were very well-behaved. That leaves at most 5-6 who weren’t. People walk away from an event they’re assigned to cover because of 5-6 people, even with police protection right there? Give me a break. So far, this isn’t passing the stench test, let alone the smell test.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 16, 2009 @ 1:28 pm

  16. I saw the Channel 19 crew in the crowd, even before Mike McConnell said there was no TV camera that he could see. So I called 5, 9, and 12, and attempted to ask if they would send a crew over. 5 said they were there, and I thanked them and hung up. 9 just picked up the phone and said “We’re At the Tea Party!” and slammed the phone down before I could say a word. 12 got real sarcastic with me, told me they had “only been there for an hour” and I “must be blind” and that I should “stop listening to Bill Cunningham.” When I asked her name, she hung up.

    If you ask me, the real target of frustration was the Enquirer. I don’t think anyone seriously expects significant TV coverage *ahead* of an event. The Enquirer is a different story, and they gave little if any coverage in print and only a small snippet online ahead of the event (not counting the blog). There is no excuse. Also their slim coverage did call group “angry” and said “organizers claim” this is part of a nationwide event. I guess google is no longer available in the Enquirer’s newsroom.

    Comment by Michael — March 16, 2009 @ 2:02 pm

  17. #16, that doesn’t bode well for an answer to my e-mail, does it? :–>

    Comment by TBlumer — March 16, 2009 @ 2:08 pm

  18. Michael, did you see the print edition of the Enquirer this morning? You teabaggers were at the top of the front page.

    Comment by Tony B. — March 16, 2009 @ 3:57 pm

  19. #18, that doesn’t address the total failure of the Enky to note the event’s upcoming existence, even at it Politics Blog, which was Mike’s central point.

    But you knew that, and dissembled anyway. Typical.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 16, 2009 @ 4:03 pm

  20. Actually I didn’t want to comment on Michael’s naïveté in believing that the Enquirer should have done more to promote a political demonstration. And I think you two missed this:
    http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090305/NEWS0108/303050049/1056/COL02

    What’s typical Tom, is your inability to admit a mistake even when presented with reporting from three different media outlets. You owe an apology to WCPO. There is no logical reason to doubt the reporting.

    Comment by Tony B. — March 16, 2009 @ 6:54 pm

  21. #20, there is no text at the Enky link in either FF for Mac or Safari for Mac, though there is text in the source code. Maybe they expect telepathy.

    WCPO is the one that owes an explanation, and I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt by giving them the opportunity to set the record straight. If they don’t respond, I believe my conclusion as stated in the subsequent post is valid, and they have provided no credible reason for me to believe otherwise. Their claim is no more or less credible than this one.

    WXIX does NOT support WCPO. WXIX specifically refutes their claim that they had to leave the event. WLWT has nothing. Enky, nothing. Five thousand people, and somehow no one else saw anything, and there is a direct refutation on the (radio) record.

    Absent evidence, the Occam’s Razor answer points to the idea that they are instead willing to suffer a major hit to their credibility because it would be even worse if they proactively tried to cobble together something few will believe after-the-fact.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 16, 2009 @ 10:57 pm

  22. Does it really surprise you that the FOX affiliate may have gotten somewhat better treatment from these Rethugs than the ABC or CBS affiliates received?

    What is it about “chased, spat on, and verbally harassed,” that you don’t understand? What don’t you understand about “had to seek police protection?” Even the FOX affiliate acknowledged, “a group of hostile people got in their faces.” Is your only beef that you think the WCPO crew should have stayed? Why?

    Comment by Tony B. — March 16, 2009 @ 11:56 pm

  23. What about the offsetting alleged eyewitness claim that nothing happened don’t you understand? Sorry pal, we’re at a standoff until there’s real evidence, and you can whine all night long about it and it won’t change a thing.

    They should have stayed and done their jobs. Absent evidence, as another observer elsewhere pointed out, they’d be in more danger at a Bengals game.

    It will be a surprise to WXIX, Fox entertainment channel affiliate, that Fox News Channel has significant influence on how they cover local news.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 17, 2009 @ 12:06 am

  24. You don’t have offsetting eyewitnesses. You have individuals who attended a large event but did not witness this isolated incident. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, and you know it, but admitting a mistake is not something you seem comfortable doing. Better to pretend to wait for response to that rant of a ransom note you sent to Fee. I’ll bet you put some fear in him.

    Comment by Tony B. — March 17, 2009 @ 11:22 am

  25. #24, you DO have offsetting eyewitnesses; YOU are the one who, as usual, won’t admit you’re wrong about that. And in this day and age, there is NO reason to believe a reporter has more credibility than any other eyewitness, period, esp when the reporter and crew are claiming to be victims.

    That’s why the burden is on WCPO, and why my interpretation of a non-response from them is proper.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 17, 2009 @ 11:35 am

  26. Ding, Ding, Ding! Point to Blumer…

    Comment by Rose — March 17, 2009 @ 3:37 pm

  27. Attendees, whether media or not, cannot witness everything at an event so large. You have a couple attendees who saw nothing. So what? Three independent media outlets witnessed and reported on this. Are you alleging conspiracy? How else could you explain it?

    Unrelated, it looks like your food tamps may be in jeopardy:
    http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090317/NEWS01/903170375

    Comment by Tony B. — March 17, 2009 @ 4:11 pm

  28. #27, no evidence, no credibility. Stop lying about three media outlets saying the same thing. They didn’t.

    The report you refer to is the direct result of anonymous tip to an SOB blogger. You should be pleased.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 17, 2009 @ 7:20 pm

  29. A WKRC reporter states here at 2:20 that she too, was forced to leave the event.

    http://www.local12.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=38520@video.wkrc.com&navCatId=5

    Sounds like these Rethugs may have been especially hard on the female reporters and photographers.

    Comment by Tony B. — March 18, 2009 @ 12:26 am

  30. #29, nice try, no sale.

    Now we’ve gone from threatened to ” a little bit uncomfortable,” EVEN WITH intervention by organizers and police protection. That justifies leaving the scene?

    I have acknowledged all along that a few people had harsh words for media folks (I haven’t ever said that DIDN’T happen).

    Absent evidence, of which there is still NONE, I haven’t seen anything that justifies their leaving. In fact, the intervention by organizers and the existence of police protection points to the exact OPPOSITE.

    And, again, NO EVIDENCE, NO CREDIBILITY. She is no more or less believable than the reporters who claim worse things happened, and others who claim almost nothing happened. Until there is evidence, don’t waste your time or mine commenting on this again or parsing her words (“chased” across the street, as in “running”? LOL).

    As time marches on, my interpretation of the non-response from WCPO, corroborated by total lack of evidence, grows ever more proper. Deal with it.

    Oh, and one more thing: You assume that those who were making the TV folks “a little bit uncomfortable” and (paraphrasing) targeting female reporters and photogs were “Rethugs.” You don’t know that (BTW, what justifies automatically eliminating poseurs as a possibility?). It’s so stereo-typical of you, and shows how two-faced your evidentiary standards are. Bleep you for that.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 18, 2009 @ 2:02 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.