I don't know what is so damned "suprising" about the fact that an ABC News reporter found four soldiers in Iraq who said they were for Obama, and one or two who said they were for Hillary, but that's what the headline says -- "Surprising Political Endorsements By U.S. Troops" -- and the story implies (without daring to state directly) that soldiers in Iraq support Democrats by a huge margin.
Note the careful wording:
ABC's Martha Raddatz asked American soldiers in Iraq what issues are most important to them when looking at the presidential candidates.
And this:
Though the military is generally a more conservative group, soldiers like Sgt. Justin Sarbaum are just as eager for a pull-out as the Democratic candidates.
"Asked American solders in Iraq" does not specify the size of the group or how and why they were selected. "Soldiers like Sgt. Justin Sarbaum" means what? Anything you want it to mean, I guess.
Not one soldier who supports McCain was mentioned or interviewed. Somehow, I don't think that's because none could be found.
All this proves is that the United States is a democracy, and citizens -- yes even soldiers -- can vote for whomever they want.
Why, that's even allowed in Philadelphia. In the last mayoral election, I vaguely remember that Republican candidate (what's-his-name? Al Taubenberger, that's it) ran against Democrat Michael Nutter, and got 17% of the vote. Yet any fool could have run around with a microphone and a camera, and found half a dozen Philadelphians who would have gladly admitted they were for Taubenberger.
Unless there's some sort of accurate polling, anecdotal statements means nothing. In the last election Kerry 18% of the military vote -- which is better than Taubenberger did with the Philadelphia vote. What this means, obviously, is that anyone could have run around with a camera, interviewed Kerry supporting soldiers, and then solemnly and truthfully intoned that "soldiers supported Kerry."
This meaningless news item is a good argument against television.
posted by Eric on 04.08.08 at 03:38 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6444
Comments
John McCain has always been a champion of an uncensored free press - even in time of war. He has often cited the movie "Paths of Glory" as a n example of why this is important. By coincidence, "Paths of Glory" is on the Turner Movie Channel on April 27. It is about the Battle of Verdum, and dumb things that happened there that could not have happened if France hadn't had strict press censorship at the time. It is worth seeing.
chocolatier · April 8, 2008 06:32 PM
By the way, "Paths of Glory" was banned in France for over 20 years. The government of France censors movies that criticize press censorship! It wasn't until the 1970s that it was legal in France to see this movie.
chocolatier · April 8, 2008 06:35 PM
The bigger question is: Will the military absentee votes be counted or will they be ignored like the last two times?
SeniorD · April 8, 2008 08:00 PM
This is a great example of why it is inappropriate for members of the military to comment on politics. It is easily misconstrued. And, if misconstrued effectively enough and John McCain wins, well then the military must not support the President - oh no!
What's it all about, alphie? The "objective truth" (let me add sic to that, lest anybody think I believe we ought to give credence to subjective "truth," which I think now goes by the moniker "truthiness") about Iraq has been hashed out many times now: the great bulk of worldwide intelligence analysis asserted that Saddam Hussein had not fully disbanded his WMD programs nor destroyed all his WMD, he either could not or would not produce UN-required records that he had done so, he'd been acting in defiance of the GWI cease-fire for over a decade, his Iraq was demonstrably a state sponsor of terrorism and, as such, a legitimate target on that basis alone, etc., etc.
What do you say about THIS story? Was the reporting objective? You imply that you recognize it wasn't; why is the non-objectivity of the press acceptable to you? Isn't press objectivity the rationale (rationalization?) presented by the press itself for reporting on whatever the heck reporters want to?
Would your opinion of the importance of at least an attempt at press objectivity be different if the position they supported were different from yours?
Jamie · April 9, 2008 01:19 PM
It's perfectly legitimate journalism. Journalists are not in a court of law. They do not have to tell the whole truth on pain om imprisonment. How could they? She accuratly reported their opinions. She may have sought out these opinions and ignored opinions that did not fit her agenda. That's OK. Journalism is the the perfect perofession for political activists who don't want to go to the trouble of getting elected. They can pick and choose what facts and opinions they want to see and then move on. They may loose all their credibillity in the process - that's a risk they appear happy to make.
Anonymous · April 9, 2008 01:54 PM
It's perfectly legitimate journalism. Journalists are not in a court of law. They do not have to tell the whole truth on pain om imprisonment. How could they? She accuratly reported their opinions. She may have sought out these opinions and ignored opinions that did not fit her agenda. That's OK. Journalism is the the perfect profession for political activists who don't want to go to the trouble of getting elected. They can pick and choose what facts and opinions they want to see and then move on. They may loose all their credibillity in the process - that's a risk they appear happy to make.
Anonymous · April 9, 2008 01:54 PM
Jamie,
I view news (and blogs) strictly as entertainment sources.
Iraq has nothing to do with objective truth anyways.
The devout who want to continue their religious war forever on one side vs. America's mounting federal debt on the other.
Why should I worry how it's "reported" when we'll be too broke to continue the slaughter of them foreign non-believers in a few years.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
John McCain has always been a champion of an uncensored free press - even in time of war. He has often cited the movie "Paths of Glory" as a n example of why this is important. By coincidence, "Paths of Glory" is on the Turner Movie Channel on April 27. It is about the Battle of Verdum, and dumb things that happened there that could not have happened if France hadn't had strict press censorship at the time. It is worth seeing.