> I meant that the election of the first black president was a much bigger deal then the 40 somethingth white old dude

But that (and many of the questions in that link) are not relevant to the specific question of how many people were at the inauguration. Which is the topic at hand. Those questions would be more relevant in a discussion of drawing other conclusions from the attendance numbers

I'm just trying to work out why it became a thing in the first place. Was Trump trying to play up attendance numbers or was someone trying play up the lack of them to be something meaningful?

There are tons of valid reasons why there was less attendance at this inauguration (many listed in the link you posted), which is exactly why it's weird and disgusting that Trump is blatantly lying about having attendance he very clearly didn't have.

It's not that big of a deal, and doesn't mean much that there was less attendance. The weather was bad and it was not historically significant because he's not the first black (or anything significant) president ever. So why is he so blatantly lying? He could just move on and it would be no big deal... but instead he makes a very large deal about it, dedicating a special press briefing specifically to make up lies about to explain how the media got it wrong.

The media mentioned it a bit on Friday, even more on Saturday due to the Womens March outdrawing the Inauguration itself, and Trump couldn't handle the coverage.

I'm guessing it wound up news because of the boasts and claims made by Trump and his staff about how it was the best turnout ever, with fictitious numbers added in to the claims.

For the health of the republic, I'm keen to see the media become the adversary calling out lies, lies, and all damn lies. No matter what they are. Maybe then we can be free of all the lies.

He's 70 FWIW

GP wasn't giving an age. GP stated Trump was the 40-something-th white old dude to be president.