This one is particularly interesting, though, both because the 'hundreds' title clearly conflicts with the copy in the article that states, "A line of more than a thousand people...", but also because of the not-so-subtle smear campaign that "journalists" have been waging in the press since Palin was announced as McCain's running mate.
This one is particularly interesting, though, both because the 'hundreds' title clearly conflicts with the copy in the article that states, "A line of more than a thousand people...",I noticed that line, too, and it is one of the things that was different between the two versions of the article. In the first article, the copy said "thousands of people" while in the second article it says "A line of more than a thousand". My guess is that the reporter got a crowd estimate between the first and second article that put the size of the crowd more than one thousand but less than two thousand (for example let's say 1900). Such a figure is more than a thousand, but to describe that figure as "thousands" is not really accurate, because for you to have "thousands" you would really have to have at least two thousand. Given that, perhaps the reporter was just updating the initial article with a more accurate description.
because the 'hundreds' title clearly conflicts with the copy in the article that states, "A line of more than a thousand people..."
If the crowd estimate comes in at a number "more than a thousand" but less than two thousand (for example 1900), then which word is more accurate: "hundreds" or "thousands"? There are plenty of examples of blatant media bias, but I think it is possible that in this case a reporter is just providing an updated version of an article that replaced "thousands" with "more than a thousand" to be more linguistically accurate.