There are organizers, always. Sometimes they're volunteer, sometimes they're paid.
That there was a "list" meant somebody drew it up. That would be the organizers.
That they marched on the Mall meant somebody had to put in an application for a permit, with contact names. That, too, was the organizers.
A lot of local groups decided to participate--but they had local organizers.
The SPLC just doesn't want to say bad things about somebody that's still mostly an ally, but doesn't want to be seen supporting them. Non-support is more palatable to donors than active condemnation. If the anti-Semitic organizers were (R) there'd be no end to what they'd say. Heck, we'd be calling for making their lives a living hell so that they and their families died in ignominy. As it is, we debate whether what they did is really that bad, some find excuses, but most just want to sort of hope nobody notices.
In every large activity like the march, however, most people will be unaware of many things. Whether it's a progressive or conservative "action" most will know the sound-bite official reasons for doing things, the stuff put on a flyer or that's spread by word of mouth; most won't know everything bad behind the scenes, and if you actually asked you'd find that a decent number are there because they believe it's really primarily something else. Even during the speeches, most people will be tuned out. It's a rather severe error to assume that they're all in lockstep on every point. It's an error we're more likely to make when we judge others than judge ourselves, where if an organizer or speaker has some grievous statement or act in his past it means everybody's there to support precisely that. But it's an error we still make, when we say, "X number of women marched, and they all were there to support _________," where _____ is just one of the issues or points made.
= new reply since forum marked as read