Send Us Hatemail ! mailbag@conservativecave.com
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
babylonsister (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-31-08 07:07 AMOriginal message Brandon Friedman: Military Times Damages Credibility with Obama "Survey" Brandon FriedmanAuthor, Vice Chairman of VoteVets.orgPosted December 31, 2008 | 05:29 AM (EST)Military Times Damages Credibility with Obama "Survey"Once again, the widely-read Military Times is deliberately attempting to accentuate the perceived rift between the military and the incoming Obama administration by promoting an amateurish, unscientific survey called the "2008 Military Times Poll." Here's the headline for the main article:2008 Military Times poll: Wary about ObamaTroops cite inexperience, Iraq timetablesnip//The overarching problem with these pieces is that the Military Times has sacrificed journalistic integrity in order to portray itself as the final word--as the authority--on the views of America's troops. In reality, however, they were too lazy or too cheap to conduct a real survey. And by not doing so, they've now contributed to the false--but titillating and dramatic!--storyline they seem so eager to push.I don't know if they just think it's what their readers want to hear, or if they think their readers are just too stupid to notice. I would assume, however, that the Military Times realizes that, while most of their subscribers older and white, the majority of their young, under-represented active duty readers likely pick up copies at the AAFES cash register--and don't receive them via subscriptions. Personally, I used to read the paper version of the Army Times every week. But I've never met anyone with a subscription.Regardless, by being so careless, they've done a disservice to both the military and its new Commander-in-Chief. If they're going to conduct self-selecting polls like these, they need to quit promoting them as representative of the entire military. Because they're not.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brandon-friedman/military...
babylonsister (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-31-08 07:26 AMResponse to Reply #1 2. Yes, and this is more disinformation getting out there. I also wonder whether it's calculated, or comes from someone not employed at the paper. Color me suspicious.
MADem (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-31-08 07:37 AMResponse to Reply #1 4. Military personnel in the DC area are assigned to attend the inaugural. They don't have any choice in the matter. They're "volunteered" by their seniors to contribute to the cause. All those servicemembers lined up along the parade route, they're not there for their own enjoyment, they're on duty. Same way with the ones lined up here, there, everywhere, for crowd control, to march in the parade, etc. Don't take this stuff too seriously. Plenty of servicemembers (the ones who kept an eye on their paychecks) thought quite well of Clinton. He gave us some of the biggest pay raises we'd seen to date, without having to get shot to get them, too!
mwb970 (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-31-08 08:53 AMResponse to Original message 6. Our troops are not stupid. They can see exactly what the Commode-In-Chief has done to them, to our nation, to our world, and to our planet. Absurdly biased polls like this tell us exactly nothing.
Sampling the militaryPosted : Monday Dec 29, 2008 13:20:10 ESTFrom Dec. 1 through Dec. 8, Military Times conducted an annual survey of active-duty, National Guard and reserve, and retired military subscribers.About 36,000 subscribers received invitations via e-mail to participate. Of those, 5,181 completed the survey. Except where noted, data were filtered to include 1,947 responses from active-duty subscribers.The responses “no opinion,†“declined to answer†and “other†are not shown for all questions. Some charts do not total 100 percent due to rounding.Although public opinion pollsters use random selection to survey the general public, the Military Times survey is based on responses from those who chose to participate. That means it is impossible to calculate statistical margins of error commonly reported in opinion surveys, because those calculations depend on random sampling techniques.The voluntary nature of the survey, the dependence on e-mail and the characteristics of Military Times readers could affect the results.
babylonsister (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-31-08 07:07 AMOriginal message Brandon Friedman: Military Times Damages Credibility with Obama "Survey" ...The overarching problem with these pieces is that the Military Times has sacrificed journalistic integrity in order to portray itself as the final word--as the authority--on the views of America's troops. In reality, however, they were too lazy or too cheap to conduct a real survey. And by not doing so, they've now contributed to the false--but titillating and dramatic!--storyline they seem so eager to push....
