Thousands rally in Times Square against Iran deal

An estimated 10,000 people jammed Times Square in New York City to rally against the Iran nuclear agreement. 

Apparently, that wasn't enough people to catch the attention of the New York Times, who feature a $15-an-hour minimum wage protest of a couple of dozen people on the front page, but not thousands rallying against the Iran deal.

New York Daily News:

Thousands protesters packed Times Square Wednesday to rally against the Obama administration’s controversial nuclear deal with Iran. Speakers, including former Gov. George Pataki, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), and conservative commentator Monica Crowley, called on Congress to scuttle the deal at the Stop Iran

 Daily News Chairman and Publisher Mortimer B. Zuckerman was the first to address the crowd. “We have to stop the suicidal agreement that permits Iran to keep a nuclear infrastructure,” Zuckerman said. “We have to stop a terrorist state going nuclear when even now it menaces its neighbors.”

Many in the crowd held signs calling on Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to lead Dems against the deal. “Where’s Chuck? Kill this deal!” the crowd chanted.

Congress has 60 days to review the pact between six world powers and Iran. In Washington, top Obama officials spent the day pitching the deal to members of Congress, but some lawmakers said Secretary of State Kerry’s sales job rubbed them the wrong way.

Indeed, Google News shows only a handful of news outlets who bothered to cover the rally, most of them foreign sources.  CNN has nothing on the rally, either.  The Washington Post front page features a story about Kerry's salesmanship, but not a word about the rally.

When 10,000 American citizens make an effort to show up at a protest, you would think that's news.  The Times and the rest of them cover any gaggle of left-wing radicals who gather at a street corner.  Demonstrations against racism are covered even if the crowd is tiny.  The Times and most other MSM outlets gave loving coverage to the Occupy Wall Street movement despite the miniscule numbers of people participating.

Perhaps the public editor of the Times could come forth and give us the reason why it wasn't news that 10,000 people gathered to protest in her city.  I'm sure her explanation will be creative and colorful.

If you experience technical problems, please write to