Presidents, the media, and truth: size and lies
[UPDATE 3:57 PM: I was writing part of this post while Spicer’s latest press conference was going on, and so I missed this, which is quite relevant:
On Saturday, an angry Spicer said,” This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration ”” period ”” both in person and around the globe.”
That statement was widely taken to mean that there were more people on the National Mall to witness the inauguration than any other.
On Monday, Spicer said he did not mean to suggest that it was the case.
“I’m not” saying that, Spicer said.
“I’m saying it was the total largest audience witnessed in person and around the globe,” the spokesman said.
Spicer said, “If you have up the network streaming numbers, Facebook, YouTube, all the various live streamings that we have information on so far, I don’t think there’s any question that it was the largest watched inauguration ever.”…
At Monday’s news conference, Spicer said “the information” about ridership “came from an outside agency that we reported on.”
“Knowing what we know now, we can tell a lot of those numbers are different,” Spicer said. “But we were trying to provide the numbers that we had been provided.”
“That wasn’t like we made them up out of thin air,” he said.
Spicer noted that “there are times when you guys tweet something out, or write a story, and you publish a correction.”
“That doesn’t mean that you were intentionally trying to deceive readers and the American people, does it?” Spicer asked. “I think we should be afforded the same opportunity.”
That’s the basically the point I was making in this post. Fat chance, though. Fat chance.]
Ever notice how Trump gets into a lot of arguments about the size of things?
Body parts, like hands and genitalia. And crowd size. “My crowds are bigger than yours!”
Now, I can’t vouch for the size of Trump’s genitalia (glad we got that out of the way). Nor even his hands, although I’ve seen photos. But from the photo evidence we have, it seems that Trump’s crowds at the inauguration, although large, were indeed nowhere near as large as Obama’s.
And why would they be? The weather was lousy. And while Trump is many things to many people, one thing he is not is the first black president.
The better question is: why do we care? (I certainly don’t.) Because we are told to, both by the MSM and by the Trump camp, who initially made a big deal of it by saying the MSM lied. That opened the door for the MSM to say that the Trump camp lied. I think that if anyone lied it was the latter (more about that in a moment), but we already know that Trump sometimes lies.
In fact, he’s even lied about crowds before (of a different kind), and it was one of his first lies during his campaign, but certainly not the most important or the last. Only thing is, Trump was running against another notorious liar, about things big and small. And they were preceded by President “you can keep your doctor.” And then there was Bill Clinton and “that woman,” as well as a certain blue dress.
So the media’s big huff about this is a bit misplaced, although I would have much rather seen Trump and his camp say “Hey, it rained. Our crowds were big. Let’s move on.”
But just to belabor the question, were all the facts known by the Trump people at the outset? I don’t know, but there’s a different between lies and errors (not that Trump’s camp isn’t sometimes guilty of lying; it certainly is). I found this, however [emphasis mine]:
[Crowd expert] Altenberg said: “We compared thousands of images from different sources. We followed seven live feeds just to get an idea of the spreading of the crowd and then we compared them, to look at the density.
“What’s interesting about this is they compared the view from the Capitol and this is a distorted image. We compared several angles, several images which they couldn’t see, actually, from this one perspective.”
That view was distorted, he said, because “I can’t see behind people. I can’t see if there’s room. But if we walk around the people as we did with our images we can see there’s nothing behind it.”
My interpretation of that statement from that crowd expert (who is clearly neither a Trump nor a Spicer fan) is that the Trump camp was honestly mistaken (at least initially) because it used only one somewhat-misleading image instead of seven.
And then there’s this from Politifact, not a friend of the right, either [emphasis mine]:
But the number of attendees at inaugurations has varied widely throughout the years.
Due to controversies over estimates, the National Park Service no longer releases official estimates for how many people attend events on the National Mall. It stopped after a dispute over the tally of the Million Man March in 1995.
The U.S. Armed Forces Joint Task Force-National Capital Region and the Joint Congressional Committee, which plan and support inaugural proceedings, will not be releasing estimates, either.
Part of the issue is that estimating crowds is not an exact science, and tallies can be inconsistent.
When does a disagreement over crowd size become a lie? When Donald Trump is one of the participants. When it’s the Million Man March, it’s just alternative facts* (said without irony) or disputes/disagreements, or an “inconsistent” tally.
As I was researching and writing this, I began to wonder why I was covering it at all. Well, it’s the talk of the country—you’d think nothing else was going on. I’ll tell you one thing, though—I don’t plan to cover every brouhaha between the press and Trump during the course of his presidency. We all have better things to do.
[* “Alternative facts” a la Kellyanne Conway is the meme du jour.]
[NOTE: Here’s some fact-checking of those Spicer’statements that everyone is up in arms about. Now, CNN is not a Trump-friendly venue, but I don’t see much more there in terms of lies than what’s normal at a presidential press coverage, or what has become normal in the last few decades. Some of it seems to be error or disputes about which figures to use, such as for subway ridership.]
I’ve also read comments about the difficulties in getting into the mall because of greater security measures, so the time that the pictures were taken may also be important. Another factor is that Obama probably had far more blacks who only had to travel a short distance to reach the mall, and the number of blacks in DC, PG county, and Baltimore is enormous. I can’t imagine a black person living there who wouldn’t want to go to the inaugurations. It takes a lot more effort to get from the middle of PA or Wisconsin. Had the media wanted to report on this, they should have mentioned those differences.
I’m beginning to think that Trump is an even greater genius than I previously thought: He has again created a national press explosion over a topic any sane person would not think worth ten seconds of thought, and in the process he swept the women’s march from the stage.
expat, 4:19 pm — “I’ve also read comments about the difficulties in getting into the mall because of greater security measures . . . .”
I suggest tacking on to that a reluctance to go to the mall because of a (very well-founded) fear of left wing thuggery, including fear for one’s physical well-being.
The juvenile brown shirts were certainly out in force.
The MSM’s piling into this footling matter of attendance numbers smacks of desperation on their part. Was there nothing else worth asking? Well, they did ask whether Trump had decided to move the US embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. It was evidently so important to them that they asked twice. Don’t they observe each other’s questions?
I would wager it was probably watched live by more people overall than any in history. My mother who is militantly anti-politics when it comes to the television watched it.
I haven’t watched an inauguration since Reagan in 1981, and I watched it Friday if only to see if the protesters managed to disrupt the main event. I can’t imagine I am unique in this regard. Trump is a spectacle, like it or not and he draws eyeballs.
Trump is just freaking brilliant, however, in how he baits the press. I know a lot of Republicans don’t like this about him because they think the hostile coverage is bad for his presidency, but I beg to differ- if it mattered, he wouldn’t have even won the nomination much less the presidency. I have long argued (17 years now going back to the 2000 election) that Republicans waste their time trying to manage good relations with the media, but Trump alone seemed to understand this out of the Republican field.
So, we have pundits with earpieces and telemonitors sitting in front of a bluescreen pontificating on statistics and optics?
i might have gone with a telescope and a blackboard.
Or chalk and string. That would be something to have skills with. Or at least, when the cameras are off.
Trump is the master of press baiting.
It’s like watching Col. Hogan toy with Col. Klink.
CNN’s Gigapixel
I was at the Inauguration. Took an early train to Union Station; ate breakfast there, and left for the Mall around ten. Protesters had jammed the TSA-style security gates. I had to walk west and north to get around several streets where the security portals were jammed. Finally got down to the Mall at 10th street, and didn’t get to the Mall until Pence was being sworn in. Others kept trickling in thereafter.
Neocon
In fact, he’s even lied about crowds??
Give me a break who many US presidents lied before him?
Nixon
Bill Clinton
G W Bush
The national debate has now elevated to intellectual levels never imagined.
I dare say that four years ago, or at most any other time, the media, the Punditry, and the country would have shrugged over this squabble.
It is nice that Neo began this post with an actual quote from Spicer. In the press briefing they would not even acknowledge that he had been misquoted when accused of lying.
The accusation of lying should be retired with apologies. Ha!
As others have indicated, I if the crowd on the mall was smaller than that for Obama, which I acknowledge is likely, there are a number of explanations. Not the least is the weather. I attended the inauguration of Bush 41, when I was obviously much younger;and there were no security procedures at all. Standing out in DC for hours in January is a tough proposition even when the skies are blue. Saturday, rain was forecast. It took a hardy soul to make the commitment.
Let’s move on. The first day was busy and encouraging on several fronts.
SAD,
Hmmmmm….. the only one to pile up more lies than WJC was a felllow named Obama.
“Alternative facts” will not just be a meme du jour but a meme pour la durée, as it is definitive in a way of the times we are in.
.
“if the crowd on the mall was smaller than that for Obama, which I acknowledge is likely, there are a number of explanations. Not the least is the weather. I attended the inauguration of Bush 41, when I was obviously much younger;and there were no security procedures at all. Standing out in DC for hours in January is a tough proposition even when the skies are blue. Saturday, rain was forecast. It took a hardy soul to make the commitment.” – Oldflyer
Probably the most accurate statement regarding the actual crowd level.
.
What we are seeing is simply a red vs blue team tussle.
Would rather we all ignore these provocations, but I’m betting on not.
Even though it takes two to tango, expect that this continues for some time at this or greater intensity with this president at the helm.
SAD:
I certainly pointed out that others lie, both presidents and candidates.
The demographics for the whole D.C. to NYC corridor are hard Democrat and it’s not a long train, bus or even car ride for millions of Dems. Add to that the number of blacks, in the area, who were thrilled to see Obama sworn in twice and it appears to me that Trump got a decent turn out considering all of the blocked entrances. Not much of a story until you notice that Trump once more dominated the media and yes, the various protestors lost out on time and space.
At first it annoyed me that Trump and his folks were making a fuss about this until it dawned on me that he never lets up on the media and their message. I appreciated W’s trying to be cordial and accomadating and attempting to win over the press and his opponents at the same time and he ended up getting smashed and mashed every time he tried to make head way on most anything.
Trump might be doing the right thing for his tenure by making noise the first day over inconsequential numbers and I don’t expect he will let up for the next four years. It will be up to us to discern what matters and what’s fluff and I expect the internet will be more important that the old main stream media and I kind of like it.
As a kid riding some horses, which were not well trained, you had to hang on and let it run a bit before it settled down, if it did and while that was exciting it wasn’t always fun. This experience might not be always be smooth or fun but what the heck, might as well hang on and let it run.
OldTexan, I like your horse analogy.
I’m beginning to think that Trump is applying a sort of Giuliani broken window approach to media narratives. He’s nipping even the silly ones in the bud, such as crowd size and the MLK bust, as a way to prevent the bigger ones down the road. I could do without another Katrina media orgy or a ‘Marco Rubio drank a lot of water during a televised speech’ scandal. Let’s see if it works.
I live in flyover country. I don’t think this is petty or a miniscule pissing contest. The media mentioned several times that the crowds were smaller than Obumble’s. I considered that at the time, as I still do, as just part of the continuing delegitmization effort against Trump. When I was in the Corps they drummed into us that the best way out of an ambush is to attack into it rather than adopting a defensive posture. I think the Trumpians need to slap these people silly whenever these things come up. After a while I suspect they’ll stop coming up.
Trump wasn’t my first choice either but I voted for him. As Lincoln said about Grant, “He fights”. He’ll have my support as long as he does that despite the prattlings of the soft-handed coastal herds.
@Lizzy – rather think it is the other way around. trump is elevating these controversies by giving them focus.
If asked! – He, and his staff, could have simply said they had millions at the inauguration but less than expected given the weather, extra security hassles, etc., etc.., then moved on.
Instead, trump brags about it (in his CIA conference, no less) and the press challenges him on it.
WTHey!
If the man wants to focus on that, fine. But, it is not helping in the least, let alone “nipping” anything “in the bud”.
It is time he act “presidential” and focus on the important stuff.
Correction… about a million and a half.
And, they could also say they weren’t really keep track. 😉
Puts the shoe on the other foot with the msm – makes them look petty.
@Dennis – well, this is more like trump standing up in a fire fight, for no good reason.
Fact is, trump’s crowd was smaller.
So what?
He, and we, don’t need to get into a debate about every little thing we fear will de-legitimize trump.
Sometimes, not focusing on these petty things is the MOST powerful move.
Why this whole affair wrt the size of the crowds is a sign of a huge problem…
“Our politics is devolving into the pathetic spectacle of liars indignantly calling out liars for lying. Rule-breakers are outraged that other rule-breakers break rules. Norms that could be violated with impunity for “social justice” can’t be violated for “nationalism.” We stick with our tribe, through thick and thin – through truth and lies….
This conduct has a high cost. It leaves the public with no one to trust.…
It’s possible to defend a man and a movement without lying. And it’s possible to refuse to lie for a man or for a movement.
Until a critical mass of the public reaches that rather simple cultural and moral understanding, expect more of the same. Partisans will win some. They’ll lose some. But they’ll always sacrifice their integrity when the chips are down.” – David French
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444142/partisan-politics-truth-lies-trump-inauguration-sean-spicer-media
“It is time he act “presidential” and focus on the important stuff.”
You mean like focusing on his campaign promises to kill TPP, drain the swamp (hiring freeze on federal workers), meeting with business leaders and union leaders to talk about getting more jobs back in the US, and being more aggressive against ISIS (http://tinyurl.com/j85dgsu)?
Spicer’s clash with the media doesn’t seem to be affecting his focus at all.
When the media attacks a Republicans, turning the other cheek only emboldens them (see: George W. Bush), and if you fight back they say, “We’re only staying on his story because you’re still talking about it.” No, they only talk about stories they want to talk about (see: covering for Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi lies, illegal email server, pay-to-play via the Clinton Family Foundation), regardless of how their target responds.
The same old approach never worked, so Trump’s doing something different. Considering he’s now in the WH despite the media openly declaring war on him he may just be on to something. Time will tell.
My father, who never took us to the thanksgiving parade, said “you’ve got the best seat in the house on tv!”
“As I was researching and writing this, I began to wonder why I was covering it at all.”
Intriguing and fascinating question.
Psychological investment is fundamental to conflict.
In the right circumstances we all get sorted out in a messy way.
If “thousands of Muslims” is a moral/ethical hang-up, maybe it was deliberately so by hiding in plain sight.
Lizzy Says:
January 23rd, 2017 at 8:06 pm
OldTexan, I like your horse analogy.
I’m beginning to think that Trump is applying a sort of Giuliani broken window approach to media narratives.
AND
Yancey Ward Says:
January 23rd, 2017 at 5:09 pm
Trump is just freaking brilliant, however, in how he baits the press. I know a lot of Republicans don’t like this about him because they think the hostile coverage is bad for his presidency, but I beg to differ- if it mattered, he wouldn’t have even won the nomination much less the presidency.
AND
Stubbs Says:
January 23rd, 2017 at 4:29 pm
I’m beginning to think that Trump is an even greater genius than I previously thought: He has again created a national press explosion over a topic any sane person would not think worth ten seconds of thought, and in the process he swept the women’s march from the stage.
COMES TO
blert Says:
January 23rd, 2017 at 5:50 pm
Trump is the master of press baiting.
It’s like watching Col. Hogan toy with Col. Klink.
* *
Or any number of “sting” movies —
THIS
expat Says:
January 23rd, 2017 at 4:19 pm
I’ve also read comments about the difficulties in getting into the mall because of greater security measures, so the time that the pictures were taken may also be important.
PLUS THIS
CapnRusty Says:
January 23rd, 2017 at 6:07 pm
I was at the Inauguration. Took an early train to Union Station; ate breakfast there, and left for the Mall around ten. Protesters had jammed the TSA-style security gates. I had to walk west and north to get around several streets where the security portals were jammed. Finally got down to the Mall at 10th street, and didn’t get to the Mall until Pence was being sworn in. Others kept trickling in thereafter.
PLUS THIS
Yancey Ward Says:
January 23rd, 2017 at 5:05 pm
I would wager it was probably watched live by more people overall than any in history. My mother who is militantly anti-politics when it comes to the television watched it.
* *
My friend had to get a ride Friday to a doctor’s appointment because her Mom wanted to watch the inauguration!
One report I read indicated that at least one of the “empty” photos was, indeed, taken well before the beginning of the show.
I watched several clips of Kellyanne Conway beating up on the talk-show hosts. That girl has real chops.
Big Maq: the French post was good (he’s one of the few old-right pundits I can still stomach), but check out his link to Instapundit:
This conduct has a high cost. It leaves the public with no one to trust. For several weeks I’ve been one of many voices calling for an independent, bipartisan investigation into the totality of Russian efforts to influence the American presidential election. In response, my friend Glenn Reynolds raised a fair question: “Who do you trust to investigate? The news media? The national security bureaucracy? Congress? All of them have gone out of their way to prove themselves untrustworthy.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444142/partisan-politics-truth-lies-trump-inauguration-sean-spicer-media
“I don’t care how many attended my inauguration ceremony or watched it around the globe. I WON! So get over it.”
(DJT as I wish him to be.)
parker
The really sad thing is that Obama’s been lying consistently for eight years…
…with the ful, complete and unequivocal support and obeisance of the MSM.
The whole thing is as sickening as it is disgusting.
Bunch of neurotic adolescents masquerading as intellectuals and arbiters of morality….
All of which does not bode well, not at all, for America and Western civilization, generally…..
@Lizzy – it is about his media focus. trump has a penchant for bragging he has the biggest and the best and whatever that gets him on this, and precisely why the media does this. Call it baiting.
The moment he is on that, he is off message.
He ought to focus on things much more important.
But, we’ve devolved to the point where all can be rationalized, because, after all, trump is “our” guy.
It’s the talk of the media, certainly. The talk of the country ? Maybe not.
I haven’t heard one mention of the “controversy” in ordinary conversation, with anyone, and I don’t expect to. I suspect that this issue, like many others, was drummed up by media and PR people whose jobs depend on always having something to talk about, regardless of whether or not anyone else cares.
@AesopFan – fair point, thanks!
I did read that article too.
Unfortunately, off the top of my head, not one body comes to mind that has widely held trust to be “fair” (a loaded word itself, perhaps – many probably would think fair = agrees with me).
Maybe if I think about it more, but wonder can anyone come up with one?
Supreme Court? Didn’t think so.
All seem tainted by a large segment of the population, for one reason or another.
.
It seems many (all?) of us contribute(d) to it by engaging in the blue vs red team dynamic rather than calling b.s. on “our own” team when needed.
This whole bit about the size of the inauguration crowd is just one example of that game and how petty things have become.
.
The unfortunate thing for Conway is her “alternative facts” comment. Reminds me of pelosi’s comment wrt needing to vote for obamacare to know what’s in it. It will endure.
Perhaps a Freudian slip of sorts, but it speaks to the game, and demonstrates why trust is nearly eliminated.
The left / msm will continue to quote her, while exaggerating their own “facts” (lies?), meanwhile, there will be those on “our side” that will continue to ignore trump’s exaggerations (lies?), justifying it as somehow “fighting back” the left, as if that is the path to resolution and restoration.
I despise what the position of WH Press Secretary has become. I don’t know when this happened; maybe it was always like this and I never noticed. I remember during Bush Jr. that the fights between press and press secretary got some attention, and I don’t know, maybe back in the Nixon days that was also one of the battlefields. But the fact is that no one can speak for what the government does and is, because it’s too big.
In my dream world, a press secretary would answer questions with “yes”, “no”, or “I’ll get back to you”, and two hours after the event there would be a published list of answers, each one with a citation to a government document.
@Nick – agree. Would be nice.
But this presumes that people would believe the government sourced document.
It is a chicken / egg scenario. We get the government we have, because that is what we choose (actively or passively), and don’t expect better behavior.
The msm publishes the kind of reports they do, from the point of view that they do, because there is an audience buying what they are publishing.
In the same way, Breitbart is a valuable internet property because there are many who continue to read their content.
People are self-selecting their “truth”.
Similarly, the behavior we see in the WH is just a devolution to that expectation level.
SAD:
The author of that article you linked to knows very little about Bush, his history, or his presidency. The author’s piece has little more depth than a bumper sticker and merely repeats various internet memes of the left about Bush.
Bush’s path was hardly easy, and he was hardly given everything. See this. Bush was also a jet pilot (piece of cake, right?), successful governor of Texas, and campaigned hard for the presidency that he won.
Sunny days vs rainy day
lower security vs higher security
but most important..
what time was the pictures taken?
i have not been able to determine because on a cloudy day you can start taking pics when they start arriving, and ignore the rest…
its not hard to take pics, and select from the group the one in which people are arriving, or one in which they are leaving early due to rain…
only way to check is to get other photos from other people and examine as shadows wont tell you on a cloudy day.
and the reason its important is that everything else they could compare to make a dent, was not valid or would dent anything given how incompetent they have been and always are.
there are two ways to do things. one is to actually have the competence on some level and work it (trump despite what people think) and to do it the leftest way, which is to be good not at the task or the thing, but to be good in the game of smear, and promote, and all that.
you can paint a target on a wall, and be a sharpshooter
(trump)
you can shoot at a wall and paint targets around the holes
(marxists)
the marxists cant ever be competent because cheating negates the ability, and the focus, and all the work needed to be competent, and the acceptance of not being competent or knowing where you stand. if you can game others, why bother with substance.
ergo, obama cant brag about giving money back to the treasury for the changing of the guard, but trump gave back 20%… soooo… lead off with my crowd is bigger than your crowd… which is a meaningless measure..
[meanwhile, the white feminists are about to lose out as they are now seen as the losers who marched and didnt help blacks and race groups, and those groups are now pointing out if you get rid of them, you get rid of those evil white men too… the eye is turning to the women, and funny funny, those who would have defended them and have for eons, are too busy to bother given whats been done to them. but its getting noisy given the fact that they didnt have kids, and the replacements hate them for their color because if white males made it all suck, white women made white men, and white feminists are hated for duplicity, and their white privelege… its all on the web now if you know where to read.
I see “white feminism” as a specific set of single-issue, non-intersectional, superficial feminist practices. It is the feminism we understand as mainstream; the feminism obsessed with body hair, and high heels and makeup, and changing your married name. It is the feminism you probably first learned. “White feminism” is the feminism that doesn’t understand western privilege, or cultural context. It is the feminism that doesn’t consider race as a factor in the struggle for equality. – C young
from blacksphere
White Feminists love killing black babies
The real war on women is the white Liberal feminists getting even with black women.
These feminist frauds act as if they want choice in their bodies, but their real agenda is to denigrate black women, women whom they still resent for the past acts of their lecherous, slave-owning, rapist Democrat husbands / Slave women were at the whim of their masters, so one can only imagine the sexual deviance by these Democrat men, as they brutalized their chattel. Many white women sat idly by as their men “had their way” with the help. Once the slaves were free, the attention of these now thoroughly lecherous men were turned back onto their women. Imagine for a bit how these gentile white women would take to the demands of their men who had been with slave women who had no choice but to do whatever their masters wanted. – by Kevin Jackson
ANGRY UPSET FEMINIST SAYS SHE WANTS TO KILL WHITE PEOPLE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEdhxiQ1wRU
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
gonna be interesting given that they have gone off the deep end in desperation of the revolution being snatched from what they thought was theirs…
the angry feminist link is a kind of sarcastic parody, my apologies… i thought it was a different vid that had what the title was saying…
mia culpa…
“The msm publishes the kind of reports they do, from the point of view that they do, because there is an audience buying what they are publishing.” – Big Maq
Big Maq, you’re giving the msm too much credit for selfish ambition.
No, the msm reports as they do, because they are true believers in the progressive/leftist agenda and don’t see any contradiction in what they’re doing.
They would report the same fake news regardless of whether there is an audience for it or not. I would suggest the readership of the NYT and the viewership of CNN as proof.
They believe they are fighting the good fight.
When I was in journalism school in the early 70’s (before Watergate), there was already a raging debate whether or not a reported could be truly unbiased in their reporting. The solution was advocacy journalism.
It was more prevalent in the TV side than the print side. Then, of course, Woodward and Bernstein happened and then everyone wanted to be a crusader.
@Brian – yes, I understand that all, and agree with much of it.
Some are full bore advocacy journalists.
Others think they are being “fair”, but their world view is in the Acela corridor / coastal bubble, and it reflects that.
Yet, others just found a niche that works for them.
And, yes, “They (probably most) believe they are fighting the good fight.”
.
However, what matters is that their employers earn money by providing a product.
That product is still selling, as there is an audience for it, a demand for it.
The reporters are there and get paid by their employers ONLY because they provide the content that fulfills that employers’ niche demand.
Turns out, that niche is rather broad in size, and leans left, in the case of the msm.
Did the repubs say “attendance” or “witness”? The difference includes television, or not.
If it’s the latter, claiming the the attendance numbers does not apply, unless you insist the issue was “attendance”.
SADly another Leftist rapist propagandist has arisen who needs Soros money to be good.