Brandon Friedman: Military Times Damages Credibility with Obama "Survey"

[babylonsister]

Brandon Friedman

Author, Vice Chairman of VoteVets.org
Posted 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 Obama

Troops cite inexperience, Iraq timetable

snip//

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-times-damages-cr_b_154406.html

[Kolesar]

1. I recall military crowds cheering at the change of command from President Clinton to *

Two years later, it's "off to the quagmire, boys!".

[babylonsister]

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. :think: Color me suspicious.

[MADem]

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!

[Kolesar]

7. It was not the "inaugural", it was some change of command ceremony at a military base a month later

[MADem]

9. Well, if you read your subject line, that's not the meaning you transmitted.

Whose change of command, do you recall? I attended most of them around that time.

[Kolesar]

10. Change of command does not mean inauguration

[MADem]

11. The Inauguration IS a change of command. The ceremony is quite similar, actually.

We're changing commanders in chief, you see. DOD uses the term "The nation's change of command" to describe the 2000 Clinton to Bush ceremonies in this article: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45374

Again, your subject line doesn't provide any information about WHO was changing command, or when.

The natural inference was that your mind could not find the "I" word and substituted the other term--which is "acceptable" though not perhaps a first or even usual choice to describe the event.

Do you remember which Change of Command it was, again?

[MADem]

3. Oh, for Christ's sake. This writer is an idiot who doesn't read.

That poll has NEVER, EVER been accurate.

It does not reflect THE MILITARY.

It reflects the views of subscribers to (not just readers--the twitches who actually PAY to get the lousy paper) the Army/Navy/Air Force/USMC Times newspapers, which are tabloid publications printed in Springfield, VA. They have an online presence as well.

The paper does not portray itself as "the final word" either--they say, straight up, that their poll is unscientific.

I've never known that poll to be reflective of actual military opinion, EVER. The troops did NOT hate Clinton like their polls indicated, they didn't LOVE Bush like the polls suggested, and they don't hate Obama, either.

The poll is designed to be responded to by desk jockeys, not real people with real jobs. And we know where most of the desk jockeys park their fat asses--at the Pentagon, the Service Personnel HQs, and the large shore bases/installations.

The umbrage of Brandon Friedman is just fucking stupid "If they're going to conduct self selecting polls..." They've been doing this shit for decades. They ADMIT that their polls are self-selecting. They "imply" nothing. But ultimately: No one CARES.

From another source covering this foolish and meaningless survey: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1352687,CST-NWS-mili29.article

The responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers.

Link to ARMY TIMES article with access to entire survey including raw results: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/military_poll_main_122908/

Here's what the MILITARY TIMES says about their own survey:

From 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.

In other words, it's crap, and they admit it. Would a survey of "Women's Day" subscribers automatically be representative of ALL WOMEN? How about surveying people who read "MEN'S HEALTH?" Is that the final word from all MEN?

The umbrage is idiotic, and if you look at the survey stats, considering the self-selected "gung ho" subset that has been surveyed, Obama is not doing badly at all.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mwb970]

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.

[jmowreader]

8. They're also not describing WHO subscribes to these rags

Most first sergeants, all sergeants major and most commanders at battalion and above subscribe. There aren't many Democrats in that demographic. I would have been shocked--SHOCKED, I tell ya--if Army Times subscribers, for whom war is good for their OERs and EERs, liked a president who campaigned on a promise to end the war they're fighting.

I'm with babylonsister on this: I've never met anyone with a subscription either. Then again, I never met all that many people who read the Army Times more than occasionally--most people on the promotion list would buy the issue with the cutoff scores in it to see if they got promoted, but in general you read something else.