Crowd controversy: The making of an Inauguration Day photo

[webfact]

Crowd controversy: The making of an Inauguration Day photo

By Daniel Trotta

REUTERS

 

A combination of photos taken at the National Mall shows the crowds attending the inauguration ceremonies to swear in U.S.

President Donald Trump at 12:01pm (L) on January 20, 2017 and President Barack Obama on January 20, 2009, in Washington, DC, U.S. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson (L), Stelios Varias

 

(Reuters) - The picture that lit up social media and unsettled the White House began with a trek up 50 flights of stairs, nearly to the top of the Washington Monument, for a bird's eye view of Donald Trump's inauguration on Friday as the 45th U.S. president.

 

Reuters had asked the U.S. National Park Service in an email on Jan. 13 whether a photographer could be posted on the observation level near the top of the monument, the highest vantage point overlooking the National Mall. The next business day, the park service agreed to grant Reuters access, on condition the news agency would make the picture available to other media that requested it.

 

Attendees partake in the inauguration ceremonies to swear in Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

 

Because the elevator is under renovation, photographer Lucas Jackson had to climb 897 steps to reach the 500-foot (152-meter) elevation, carrying a backpack and shoulder bag full of photo gear, plus a step ladder.

 

"It was definitely a strenuous climb," Jackson said.

 

A CBS News camera operator and a Park Service photographer were the only others taking images from the observation level. Reuters published side-by-side pictures of two moments in history.

 

Attendees partake in the inauguration ceremonies to swear in Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson/File Photo

 

One image was Trump's inauguration on Friday, taken by Jackson just as Trump took the oath of office, Jackson said.

 

The other picture was taken by Reuters photographer Stelios Varias from the same spot during former President Barack Obama's first inauguration, at 1:27 p.m. on Jan. 20, 2009, around the time Obama finished his inaugural address.

 

People gather on the National Mall during the inauguration ceremonies for U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington, U.S., January 20, 2009. REUTERS/Stelios Varias/File Photo

 

Reuters published a combination of the two pictures at 2:02 p.m. (1902 GMT). The caption read: "A combination of photos taken at the National Mall shows the crowds attending the inauguration ceremonies to swear in U.S. President Donald Trump at 12:01 p.m. (L) on January 20, 2017 and President Barack Obama on January 20, 2009, in Washington, DC."

 

The caption did not state which crowd was larger.

 

The side-by-side images soon went viral on social media sites such as Twitter, where people added commentary about the relative size of the crowds. The controversy dominated Trump's first weekend in office.

 

From Trump's vantage point, the new president saw a sea of people that he estimated at 1 million to 1.5 million strong, according to his remarks on Saturday at CIA headquarters. Trump chided the "dishonest media" for showing pictures of empty spaces on the mall.

 

Later that day, White House spokesman Sean Spicer accused some of the media of engaging in "deliberately false reporting."

"This was the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe," Spicer said.

 

Spicer elaborated on Monday, saying he stood by the remark given the "tens of millions of people that watched it online" with devices that were unavailable in the past.

 

(Reporting by Daniel Trotta; Editing by Frances Kerry)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-01-24

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

[kevkev1888]

Well well well, Trump was right after all. Again!

The comparison picture was false, IE taken earlier in the day.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

 

http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/01/22/inauguration-photo-comparison-nyt-vs-cnn-gigapixel-vs-pbs-timelapse/

 

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by kevkev1888

[Savilesghost]

9 minutes ago, kevkev1888 said:

Well well well, Trump was right after all. Again!

The comparison picture was false, IE taken earlier in the day.

 

http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/01/22/inauguration-photo-comparison-nyt-vs-cnn-gigapixel-vs-pbs-timelapse/

 

 

What the MSM publishing alternative facts again ? Never, next they will be saying it was the Russians or RT 

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, kevkev1888 said:

Well well well, Trump was right after all. Again!

The comparison picture was false, IE taken earlier in the day.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

 

http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/01/22/inauguration-photo-comparison-nyt-vs-cnn-gigapixel-vs-pbs-timelapse/

 

 

 

What are we supposed to discern from these links? The first is from a different perspective and elevation, so clearly it will not show any open ground behind the crowd.

 

The second is a clip from a very partisan website that seems to show, on timelapse film, pretty much what the Reuters photo shows.

[Emster23]

1 hour ago, kevkev1888 said:

Well well well, Trump was right after all. Again!

The comparison picture was false, IE taken earlier in the day.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

 

http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/01/22/inauguration-photo-comparison-nyt-vs-cnn-gigapixel-vs-pbs-timelapse/

 

 

" One image was Trump's inauguration on Friday, taken by Jackson just as Trump took the oath of office, Jackson said."

An hour and 27 minutes before Obama photo was taken, so it was earlier, during what should be "the money shot" for inaugurations.. Seems people would be there in greater numbers for the swearing in. Obama photo would be as people were leaving, it was over and done, so one might even make logical assumption numbers at Obama's during swearing in probably even greater. 

[kamahele]

1 hour ago, kevkev1888 said:

Well well well, Trump was right after all. Again!

The comparison picture was false, IE taken earlier in the day.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

 

http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/01/22/inauguration-photo-comparison-nyt-vs-cnn-gigapixel-vs-pbs-timelapse/

 

 

Actually Trump was wrong after all. Again! While there was a difference in time, one would think that people would have already been leaving Obama's inauguration by the time the photo was taken in 2009. Also, the numbers from the DC metro ridership show much larger numbers on the day of Obama's inauguration. But the numbers shouldn't matter to the new President. The fact he has made it such a big deal is a problem as it reaffirms that he does not have the temperament to be President and that he is a liar. 

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, kevkev1888 said:

Well well well, Trump was right after all. Again!

The comparison picture was false, IE taken earlier in the day.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

 

http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/01/22/inauguration-photo-comparison-nyt-vs-cnn-gigapixel-vs-pbs-timelapse/

 

 

If twitchy.com, an eminent fake news site says so, then it must be the case.

IS THE widely circulated image comparing Donald Trump’s inauguration with Barack Obama’s in 2009 “fake news”?

It is, according to supporters of the now US President, who claim the right-hand image in the comparison, released by the Associated Press, was taken hours before the actual ceremony. According to AP, both images were taken “shortly before noon” from the top of the Washington Monument.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/trump-supporters-claim-fake-news-over-crowd-size/news-story/5033d1bc136f821741bd6b6d0172abca

 

[SOUTHERNSTAR]

Does it matter ? Why spend so much energy on something that's so trivial.

[ResandePohm]

9 minutes ago, SOUTHERNSTAR said:

Does it matter ? Why spend so much energy on something that's so trivial.

You should tell that to Trump and his advisors

[Opl]

Trump cares and spends energy on it:

"You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement, the likes of which the world has never seen before."

 

It wasn't just crowd size that Trump focused on during his third day as leader of the free world. He was also fixated on television ratings for his big day.

In a third tweet on Sunday, he said, “Wow, television ratings just out: 31 million people watched the Inauguration, 11 million more than the very good ratings from 4 years ago!”

 

“the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.”

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/logical-take/201701/trump-inauguration-crowd-size-matters-so-whos-lying

 

" This can only mean that the Trump administration is not only knowingly and willfully lying about verifiably false things, they are commanding the media to repeat their lies or lose access to the White House."

 

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by Opl

[bannork]

What is the new phrase for telling a lie? -alternative facts-5555555

George Orwell was so right 

[Savilesghost]

24 minutes ago, bannork said:

What is the new phrase for telling a lie? -alternative facts-5555555

George Orwell was so right 

Two new newspeak terms introduced in recent times 

 

Alternative facts

Populist 

 

 

 

 

[timendres]

It is nonsense. Trump should ignore this, and the media should be embarrassed. Obama was the first black president in US history! Of course, one would expect this to be a much more attended event.

[bannork]

4 minutes ago, timendres said:

It is nonsense. Trump should ignore this, and the media should be embarrassed. Obama was the first black president in US history! Of course, one would expect this to be a much more attended event.

 But Trump is the first President to have never held public office. The first President to have openly insulted women, the disabled, Muslims, Mexicans etc.

All sweet music to the deplorables .

Surely they could have filled the National Mall?

[Thakkar]

FACT CHECK: WH's new press secretary lied 4 times during a 5 minute speech. #Trump #SpicerFacts

https://twitter.com/BR24/status/823159817514680324

Edited January 24, 2017 by Thakkar
Trying to embed the vid

[katana]

Paul Joseph Watson's view on the crowd controversy is that the inauguration was actually much more crowded than the mainstream media let on.

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by katana

[optad]

"People have shrunk since obama's inauguration". 

 

Not quoted, but should have been on http://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/the-facts-on-crowd-size/

 

Just an alternative fact

Edited January 24, 2017 by optad

[WaywardWind]

Maybe Trump was right - there were more people there but they blended in with the background:

 

 

 

[NumbNut]

1 hour ago, WaywardWind said:

Maybe Trump was right - there were more people there but they blended in with the background:

 

 

 

 

Very well played sir! 

 

I don't know what's funnier about this non-news non-event, the Trump admin trying to make this a story or the Trump apologists on the Mighty Thai Visa trying to justify it!

 

Just too funny! 

Edited January 24, 2017 by NumbNut

[hdkane]

And while the media constantly reported this nonstory, Trump opted out of TPP, a story with real impact that was barely reported...

[stevenl]

And while the media constantly reported this nonstory, Trump opted out of TPP, a story with real impact that was barely reported...

Trump made it a story.

Sent from my ROBBY using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[sirineou]

12 hours ago, Savilesghost said:

Two new newspeak terms introduced in recent times 

 

Alternative facts

Populist 

 

 

 

 

One has to respect the truthiness of alternative facts

[Credo]

Let's let Trump have this one, then because of the irregularities and illegal votes, let's call the election void and re-do it.   I wonder how well he'd do the 2nd time around.   

[Ulic]

Personally I don't know why anyone makes the trip. You get a much better view from the comfort of your couch in front of your TV. No waste of gas, parking worries, time traveling. That said, it sounds like it was disingenuous for media to say that the photos were taken at the same time. If you saw the pictures of an NFL stadium two hours before the game and 5 minutes after the game started you would certainly get

two completely different ideas on the popularity of the game.

 

[Thakkar]

6 hours ago, katana said:

Paul Joseph Watson's view on the crowd controversy is that the inauguration was actually much more crowded than the mainstream media let on.

 

 

I respect your search for the truth. But even Watson's brilliant analysis, with all the beautiful brilliant lines and arrows overlayed on the photos aren't getting at the real truth. 

Just like the moon landings, the inauguration NEVER TOOK PLACE! NObama, the Kenyan Muslim, is still the president. We've been HAD! Wake up steeple!!

[Credo]

When I saw the crowd, it looked like a Walmart had vomited.   

 

[The Dark Lord]

You know even though the US presidential elections are historically full of posturing and resemble a self perpetuating circus, you have to hand it to The Donald, that he flounced the established political "elite" who do not think that the great unwashed ( voters) really have sufficient grasp on the intricacies of political decision making to play any part in the so called democratic process.

 

why then is the House of Representatives so called are they not supposed to be representatives elected by their constituents to reflect the opinions / thoughts / desires of those self same constituents?

 

we had a similar democratic breakdown with BREXIT when the majority of registered adults in the UK who bothered to vote, decided that enough was enough and we should leave the EU. 

 

One could be be forgiven for thinking that basically the will of the people had been established and that those who are elected to convey the will of the people would carry out their duties. Furthermore after many years and millions of gallons of bloodshed to establish the UK's form of democracy ( the will of the majority) one might also be forgiven for thinking that those who did not vote for the winning side would accept that they are in a minority and adjust their lives, aspirations and temperaments accordingly.

 

But NO, in the UK the elected politicians decided and in a complete arrogant disregard for democracy stated that the will of the majority did not count as they ( the elected politicians) knew better. 

 

NO again, the losers who voted for the losing side cannot shut up about how wrong it all is, how uneducated the leavers are, why parliament and the "law lords" ( they really should drop the expression law from that title as most are fundamentally criminals)  must decide independently of the will of the people, if they think BREXIT should proceed or not. 

 

The Donald is the first elected leader I am aware of who has clearly stated that the days of the ruling political elite are getting shorter and shorter ( drain the swamp of Washington -superb!) and that when a person votes, he can be sure that his o r her voice does count. That the process of voting does have purpose and that democracy, no matter how tenuous a grip it has remaining in today's so called democratic countries, has been given what may be its last chance at survival.

 

for sure had Clinton won there would be no street battles, no whingeingactors pumped up with false opinions of their own importance, no pop stars well past their sell by date using their gender to shock people into taking notice. In fact the ones who voted for the losing side would most likely have shrugged their shoulders, turned away from the TV and been disillusioned by the whole stinking corrupt  self serving political process that promises almost as much as it fails the very people it was designed to serve.

 

Well done Mr President, if you are able and willing to carry out your promise of draining the swamp, I salute you (irrespective of which side I favoured) because their stands a man who is arguably one of the most powerful men in the  world who is for the first time in living memory doing what he promised.

 

is that so bad? (Question addressed to our Remoaners and the Trump Haters and BL Matter ( but whit e ones don't) and the failing pop stars who find the only way they can get in the news ( their addiction) is by exposing their genetilia or promising to)

 

i believe eve what I am trying to say is "A BREATH OF FRESH AIR"

Edited January 25, 2017 by The Dark Lord
Oh you work out where the spell checker overrode me

[RuamRudy]

20 minutes ago, The Dark Lord said:

The Donald is the first elected leader I am aware of who has clearly stated that the days of the ruling political elite are getting shorter and shorter ( drain the swamp of Washington -superb!) and that when a person votes, he can be sure that his o r her voice does count. That the process of voting does have purpose and that democracy, no matter how tenuous a grip it has remaining in today's so called democratic countries, has been given what may be its last chance at survival.

 

You are aware, are you not, that Hilary (and she is every bit as odious as Donald) received 3 million more votes than Trump? Clearly those people's votes didn't count. Don't pin your hopes on Doddie to change things for the better - he just presents an alternative flavour of corruption.

[ilostmypassword]

24 minutes ago, The Dark Lord said:

You know even though the US presidential elections are historically full of posturing and resemble a self perpetuating circus, you have to hand it to The Donald, that he flounced the established political "elite" who do not think that the great unwashed ( voters) really have sufficient grasp on the intricacies of political decision making to play any part in the so called democratic process.

 

why then is the House of Representatives so called are they not supposed to be representatives elected by their constituents to reflect the opinions / thoughts / desires of those self same constituents?

 

we had a similar democratic breakdown with BREXIT when the majority of registered adults in the UK who bothered to vote, decided that enough was enough and we should leave the EU. 

 

One could be be forgiven for thinking that basically the will of the people had been established and that those who are elected to convey the will of the people would carry out their duties. Furthermore after many years and millions of gallons of bloodshed to establish the UK's form of democracy ( the will of the majority) one might also be forgiven for thinking that those who did not vote for the winning side would accept that they are in a minority and adjust their lives, aspirations and temperaments accordingly.

 

But NO, in the UK the elected politicians decided and in a complete arrogant disregard for democracy stated that the will of the majority did not count as they ( the elected politicians) knew better. 

 

NO again, the losers who voted for the losing side cannot shut up about how wrong it all is, how uneducated the leavers are, why parliament and the "law lords" ( they really should drop the expression law from that title as most are fundamentally criminals)  must decide independently of the will of the people, if they think BREXIT should proceed or not. 

 

The Donald is the first elected leader I am aware of who has clearly stated that the days of the ruling political elite are getting shorter and shorter ( drain the swamp of Washington -superb!) and that when a person votes, he can be sure that his o r her voice does count. That the process of voting does have purpose and that democracy, no matter how tenuous a grip it has remaining in today's so called democratic countries, has been given what may be its last chance at survival.

 

for sure had Clinton won there would be no street battles, no whingeingactors pumped up with false opinions of their own importance, no pop stars well past their sell by date using their gender to shock people into taking notice. In fact the ones who voted for the losing side would most likely have shrugged their shoulders, turned away from the TV and been disillusioned by the whole stinking corrupt  self serving political process that promises almost as much as it fails the very people it was designed to serve.

 

Well done Mr President, if you are able and willing to carry out your promise of draining the swamp, I salute you (irrespective of which side I favoured) because their stands a man who is arguably one of the most powerful men in the  world who is for the first time in living memory doing what he promised.

 

is that so bad? (Question addressed to our Remoaners and the Trump Haters and BL Matter ( but whit e ones don't) and the failing pop stars who find the only way they can get in the news ( their addiction) is by exposing their genetilia or promising to)

 

i believe eve what I am trying to say is "A BREATH OF FRESH AIR"

So your idea of draining the swamp is to fill it with lies?  In other words, turn it into a cesspool.