Okay, question for all you anti-war types. If things were going as badly in Iraq as the media and the two Johns would have us believe, one would think our soldiers would be pretty demoralized and ready to come home now. One would also think that they would not support the man who ordered them to war. Yet the USA Today is reporting that an unscientific survey by Army Times Publishing that 4 out of 5 soldiers support President Bush (sample size of 4,000). Why is this, anti-war types? Why would a human being, living in squalor, dodging death and dismemberment, accomplishing nothing, support the guy who put them where they are?
3 comments:
It's a good thing you mentioned that it is an unscientific survey, because if you had not mentioned it, I would have dismissed the survey as bogus.
I still dismiss it, but now, with the qualifier that it is truly unscientific. How many troops do we have there? And which 4,000 did we choose to poll? There, no answer needed.
On the other hand, since I am one of the 'anti-war types' as you put it, let's see how cheerful people are to enroll in the army.
Reserves who were asked to report for active duty, are not reporting. (Check the AP item on newsday or on ABCNews.com)
And for a better report on the war, check out this report.
I see you didn’t really answer my question. Let’s not get confused between the homefront and the warfront. I learned in my history education that primary sources are better than secondary sources in nearly all cases. Applied to this situation, that means information from the boots on the ground is much more reliable than news reports or anecdotal evidence hear at home. You bring up anecdotal evidence-why isn’t recruiting better. I’m saying, why are our primary sources, those fighting the war, so supportive of the President if things are as bad as our media portrays? Wouldn’t they be the first ones to object if this thing has been led as badly as we are told? There is quite a disconnect from what I hear from our military personnel and what I hear in the media. I attribute that to the fact that there is no money in good news, only bad news. Bad news means ratings, awards, and the furthering of careers. As for your questions on the survey, read the article. The survey is not scientific because the respondents were self-selected. The question was published in a military magazine, and those who cared to respond did. This survey came out lopsided in favor of the president. My experience in business tells me that a lot more people will put forth an effort to communicate their unhappiness than those who will communicate their satisfaction. That to me makes the 4 out of 5 even more remarkable, because they made an effort to express their satisfaction with this president and his leadership.
On the issue of the scientific nature of the survey - it is also important to note that especially if it is self-selected sample, the target readership of the journal matters. People who are not happy with their job won't read a journal about their job. If someone does not want to be in the Army, he/she will not read the Army Times Publishing. I certainly wouldn't. I would be reading about what I could be doing rather than being there.
So not only is the survey unscientific because the sample is self-selected, it is also unscientific because it is not a representative sample.
Post a Comment