Dear Mr. Brown: I'm not wishing to "attack" you Mr. Brown. The San Francisco Chronicle article refutes your claim that fewer are showing up now than before Gulf War 1, as do the words of the police chief in the Washington Post from the last two protests, this is not a mere "quibble".
>From the Washington Post story in October:
"Organizers said they easily eclipsed that figure yesterday, assessing
attendance at well more than 100,000. D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey
also said he figured yesterday's rally turnout exceeded that in April, but
he didn't provide a specific number."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1027-06.htm
again from the Washington Post, dated Jan. 19, 2003: "District police officials suggested then that about 100,000 attended, and although some organizers agreed, they have since put the number closer to 200,000. This time, they said, the turnout was 500,000. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey would not provide an estimate but said it was bigger than October's. "It's one of the biggest ones we've had, certainly in recent times," he said."
Can you please explain to me how, according to the DC and San Francisco police dept. spokespersons, over 100K have shown up at the last protest and over 100K at the DC protest in October, and yet you still claim that the anti-war movement is smaller than the Gulf War 1, which, according to your own report stated had 'tens of thousands of protestors' at its height on the eve of the war?'
One other inaccuracy, your web page article on the 'worldwide anti-war movement' states in the headline that, 'tens of thousands march' in Melbourne...scroll down to the Australia story from CNN and it states explicitly that police sources state that over 100K marched. Just what is going on here Mr. Brown?
I think Mr. Kovic did a fine job answering questions. It's a shame that the only time an American anti-war perspective is aired is when there is a protest. Why not interview anti-war experts during your analysis of the war as well?
My regrets that you take my note as an "attack". A little honesty in reporting the size of the anti-war protests is all we ask for. In a democratic country, it's not too much to ask for I'm sure you would agree.
Thank you,
Stephen Philion
----- Original Message -----
From: Brown, Aaron (NY-TBS)
To: 'steve philion '
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 11:27 PM
Subject: RE: Antiwar mv't reports
First, thanks for the note. Second and really I mean this respectfully, you are wrong. Let's just take a look, a fair look if you will at the program I put on the air tonight. I can't imagine it could have possibly been a fairer and harder look at the American position on the war than what we presented. While I don't have the scripts in front of me, I'm back at the hotel now, the openning pages clearly noted what a diffcult day it was for the administration. One specific question I recall, one to Ken Polluk went some thing like this; for the administration how do they put lipstick on a pig. We laid out the day, a difficult day for the administration by any objective standard in a way that no viewer could come away with a different impression.
On the specifics of the anti war movement you are also wrong. As the Managing Editor of the program I commissioned not one but two pieces and a guest dealing with just that. And while you may want to quibble about numbers, which in my experience in these things is rarely better than guesses.. each side using numbers that reflect their own bias, we put two long looks at the issue and then booked Ron Kovic. Now it is not my place or my desire to give any guest a free ride and I wish Ron had been a little less polemical and a little more direct, the interview itself gave the a good, clear and thoughtful voice to the anti-war movement. I know Ron agreed. We talked afterwards.
I understand the times we live in. I understand people sit by their computers waiting to "attack" at every moment. But to charge that I or the program showed some bias to the anti war movement today or ever is stunning. I also understand passion and I respect it. But your note is unfair to me and to the program and to the people who work very hard each day to make it better than anything the odd little world of cable has to offer. I don't expect an apology. That too is a reflection of the times. But I deserve one.
Again thanks for writing. I take notes seriously and answer many. I don't roll over. I hope you appreciate that as well.
Aaron
-----Original Message-----
From: steve philion
Sent: 2/14/2003 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: Antiwar mv't reports
Mr. Brown,
Your bias against the anti-war movement is too obvious. You state that
present anti-war movement is smaller than the one that mobilized against
Gulf War 1, which, according to your reporter had 10's of thousands of
protestors.
I refer you to the police report from the San Francisco protest in
January:
"Police estimates of 55,000 demonstrators came from a counting of people
in Civic Center Plaza and did not include marchers who were backed up
along Market Street, said Jim Deignan, San Francisco police spokesman. "
"Aerial photographs show a packed plaza and masses stacked back along
streets leading in. If Civic Center Plaza were filled and Market Street
were lined all the way to Justin Herman Plaza, a 200,000 estimate could
be accurate, said Deignan. "
""I think it was between 50,000 and 100,000," he said, but later said
that 150,000 could be a safe estimate. "
Also, from the Washington Post and the NYT, not exactly left wing
propaganda sources, we know that in November there were over 100K who
showed up according to DC Police Chief Ramsey.
I notice that in tonight's CNN webpage article on the Melbourne protest
your headline states that "10's of thousands protest" and according to
Melbourne police over 150 K showed up.
Can't you be a little less blatant in your underestmations of the
anti-war movement?
Stephen Philion
Minneapolis, MN