US Soldiers have their own deck of cards of most wanted

According to some -- any rise is minor -- and not attributable to the war.


http://students.washington.edu/rlyse/Iraq/Recruitment.html

Where are you getting your information from?

No, I'm saying that AOL wrote a headline that it later retracted because as it was first published it made the small sampling it referred to seem like it was something more significant.

It was shoddy journalism in two ways.

First it said something along the lines of the soldiers in Iraq being furious about being lied to by leaders. It immediately caught my attention because I thought it was talking about being lied to about the war.

As it turns out it was a conversation with a handful of soldiers who are pissed about still being in Iraq, for purely selfish reasons (not taht I blame them).

A short time later the headlines were revized to reflect the insignificant sampling that the article drew from by including "some" in the headline.

IMO, Scrat has hit the nail on the head, this is a story that does not reflect a significant portion of the military and yes, any mention of this story at all gives it a greater audience than it deserves.

Look, of everyone here I think I hate thie war the most. I think it's the worst decision the US made in my lifetime.

But come on, a few self-centered soldiers does not a dilsillusioned army make. And that is exactly the picture that this news article came a cross as portraying to many.

Frank this is getting silly. The article you cite also says that the war did change some people's minds and some backed out of scholarships and joined for patriotic reasons.

I get my information from first hand experience. I am actively courted by recruiters who curse me under their breath for pulling out on the day I was going to sign.

The offices are far more crowded (even the article you cite says that inquiries about military service have gove up) and many of the jobs I sought are no longer available, leaving mostly infantry for persons in my category.

So spin it how you like, this is a silly argument. Either way the war had some effect on military recruiting. Maybe it's not dramatically positive but the bottom line is that by no strech of words can it be shown to have been even slightly negative.

And what, exactly, does that have to do with what I said to Scrat?




That is not what Scrat wrote -- and it is not what I took exception to.

Read my comment again.

Sorry, Craven, I don't mean to be silly.

Why don't you tell me what you want me to write!

I read your post again. My comments still stand. I think he was right on. This story is based on so little a statistical sampling that it's hardly relevant.

To steal fresco's line, discussing it is to reify. I think you were wrong to try to assert that he has a tendency for hyperbole and distortion. In this thread I saw much more hyperbole and distortion from you than from him. Many times you made comments about something not explicitly said. Sure nobody was asserting that the story represents the opinion of the whole but they were indeed seizing on an insignificant story and making hay with it.

In that context Scrat is right to question the validity of the sampling. Sure he could have made his case a bit more waterproof by not saying that it was an attempt to respresent the whole but IMO it is an attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill.

At any given moment you can find 10 dissillusioned people. Such a fact is relevant only in rare contexts and IMO this is not one of them. To combat this argument you seize on a logomachy and ignore the greater point that: this is only a few soldiers whining about their deployment.

I wish it were more, I wish that they'd start disliking the policies that I dislike but this is simply not the case. So my next wish is for less partisan crap. It's possible to despise a course of action without coloring one's every thought and opinion with it.

And such is life, we disagree.

Frank,

I do not want to tell you what to write, but as long as you are taking suggestions I'd request that you not use insipid tactics such as that.

Disagreeing with you is not a request to make you write what I want and your dig is a rhetorical ploy of no value. Since you asked it'd be nice if you respond to the issue and when lacking substance to say not resort to playground argument tactics such as that.

I find it silly, if you disagree say so. Don't cop out with the "what do you wnat me to write" crap. I would not do so to you.

Craven: wait a minute:
If I saw a headline that read

US Soldiers Hate to Eat in Chow Halls

would my conclusion be that the story would include the opinions of ALL US soldiers? naw.

So what was the original headline, how was it written? I don't believe you published both versions. Can we see the biased one?

==

We do know what the White House did with one reporter of this story:
From Slate's Today's Papers:

ABC News correspondent Jeffrey Kofman makes WP's gossipy media column, "The Reliable Source." On Tuesday, Kofman filed a piece on "World News Tonight" about the slumping morale of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, one of whom called for Rumsfeld's resignation on camera. A pissed-off White House struck back, leaking dirt on Kofman--he's gay and Canadian--to Matt Drudge. Kofman, from Baghdad: "This morning I had a meeting with one of the commanding officers and we talked about my report and the response back home. He said he'd read about it on the Drudge Report and had just one question. 'Is it true that you're Canadian?' I just smiled and said, 'My life is an open book.' "

===
Aren't you proud to have a White House that doesn't yet understand that you can't out someone who is already out, or in Jeff's case, oot?

And a CANADIAN?!

Joe,

I never said anyone was attempting to represent 100%. That is a figure that is rarely reached in life.

If a headline saying "US Soldiers Hate to Eat in Chow Halls" was based on a handful of opinions (out of millions) then I think it would be misleading.

But don't mind me, make your political hay.

Oh come on, do you read newspaper headlines? I used to write them.

US Soldiers Hate to Eat in Chow Halls

You read that as ALL US soldiers or some Soldiers from the US?

How about a double:
US Soldiers Hate to Eat in Chow Halls
Home Cooking Still Number One Choice.

Would that mislead anyone into thinking a poll had been done that included the opinions of all US Soldiers?? Please, how's your day gone?


What were the two headlines, the misleading one and the corrected one, please. So we can judge for ourselves, you know, they report, we decide.

Joe

Joe,

I do not recall the headlines off the top of my head but the critical point was the use of the word "some" versus the absence.

One was something like "US soldiers say their leaders lied to them" and a few hours later it was "SOME soldiers..."

IMO, this was a very relevant disticntion given that the story is based on a couple of soldiers out of thousands.

I do not expect you to agree with me. But you have given me valuable insight on why headlines are of such poor quality. ;-)

A Big Letdown
Soldiers Learn They'll Be in Baghdad Longer Than Expected

That was Jeffery's headline, is that misleading because it doesn't say some soldiers learn.....?

Maybe you should try and write a few headlines yourself and see how tough it is to take a lead paragraph and reduce it to twelve words or less.

What would your headline for this story be? (got to twelve words or less and still contain the esssence of the story.)

My headline would be ""

As in not printing a story whose validity is only apparent to the inordinately partisan.

There's no validity at all to saying that even some soldiers are disillusioned enough to speak such strong words on the record?

Inordinately partisan, CdK? You've gone to the opposite extreme here--you have no more reason, absent a good quality of data, to categorically deny the case, than those you oppose have to make. Making them out to be wrong does not make you right.

Oh stop, it wasn't partisan, do you think the reporter went looking for registered Democrats in uniform to quote? Jeez. It was a story about morale in the US Armed Forces, it was factual, topical and newsworthy in that GIs don't usually grouse on the record. None of that changes because you don't like what they said about certain individuals, or that the reporter wrote about their disappointment.
A couple of months ago the papers were full of articles about gung-ho soldiers shooting their way towards Bagdad. Was that paritsan or was that war reporting? It was war reporting and so was this story.

How about this one?

Civil Rights Leaders in Alabama to Protest Veto of Felon Voting Rights Bill
By Jon Krawczynski Associated Press Writer
Published: Jul 18, 2003

Should that read some, all or a wholelotta?? :wink:

I was most interested to hear a discussion on right-wing talk radio -- yesterday, I guess -- about the faulty software in new voting machines which is set up to be skewed as necessary. Someone pointed out that the guys serving in Iraq are po'd at Bush and will never vote for him BUT.... GET THIS ... Diebold and the other company which constructed this software have built it into the counting machines for the absentee military ballots. The ballots can now be altered, miscounted at will. That where Diebold did their trial run with the software. Hey -- that's what the wing-nuts said -- I'm only quoting, folks. But I'm interested that it was a right-wing show which raised this issue, aren't you? What does that tell you about "the mood of the country"?

The wingnuts are scared to death that there is somebody else who might be as desperate to win as they are and is as likely to use whatever methods or means necessary to achieve success as they are.

They know they stole the last election, they intend to steal the next one and are understandably nervous about being exposed.

In the process of setting up to steal an election one must hazard a guess about how someone else might try to steal it back or, God forbid, have a legal, fair and just election and spoil everything.

Joe Nation

But Joe -- these guys WANT BUSH TO LOSE. They hate the guy. They hate the Patriot Act, his moves towards gun control, his destruction of the economy, his misuse of the military. They're out to get him. We're talking here former Republicans who call themselves "the real conservatives," who put the Constitution and "Christian values" first. They feel utterly betrayed by Bush. Believe me, I tune in almost daily and relish every word they're saying!!

Seriously, Tartarin? That's encouraging. Who do you think they'd vote for... Buchanan?