i wish i had stayed in new york. that way, instead of just protesting the convention, i could have protested the new york times. which printed this entirely misleading piece of crap. the headline looks OK, the initial paragraph is OK, and then the rest of the story is devoted to chronicling (a) arrests and (b) republicans' responses. were they too chickenshit to actually wade into the HUGE PEACEFUL crowd on seventh avenue? as howard dean might say, yeeeaaaarrrgh.
cnn does better, at least. here you'll find actual quotes! from the actual organizers of the march! and some of its actual, nonviolent, noncrazy participants! what an idea!
the post, on the other hand, makes the bizarre choice of turning a story headlined "over 200,000 turn out to protest bush in new york" into a briefing on dick cheney's convention kickoff speech and the republicans' plans for the week.
as usual, i'm sad about the pallid sort of way that the big media outlets covered this thing. i understand how it might be difficult to really "get the feel" of talking a long, excruciatingly hot walk with a quarter or a half million strangers because you all care a lot about something -- but that doesn't excuse anyone, least of all respected sources like the times, from trying. as eric alterman might say, what liberal media?
anyway: this is a picture of the front of the march, and these are sorta in the middle. i haven't seen any decent aerial views yet.
just for everyone's edification, here's what al jazeera says: better than the coverage in the times, as far as i can tell. plus, if you read the whole article, you find that carl lewis doesn't like bush, either. bonus!