Is This Just Junk Journalism, Lazy Work Or Designed To Further An Agenda Or Position?
This piece written by AP military affairs writer Robert Burns rehashes much of the problems going on with recruiting facing the army this year. In particular, I would like to point out a couple of interesting tidbits that the writer poses on the outlook for army recruiting and why he thinks that the army's recruiting woes will continue into next year...
The outlook is dimmed by several key factors, including:Both of the previous points are valid towards the difficulties facing recruiters today. But not once, does the writer mention that recruiting has also proved difficult during periods when the economy is doing very well. He notes shortfalls in 1998 and 1999, we know that unemployment reached historic lows those years and the army also did not meet recruiting goals, by 6,200 recruits in 1999. But he doesn't speak to that connection. It only makes sense to talk to this issue since it is a very real consideration for recruits; when the economy is good and they have other options, it naturally becomes more difficult to recruit fresh applicants. Duh. But no mention, what-so-ever on this.
*The daily reports of American deaths in Iraq and the uncertain nature of the struggle against the insurgency have put a damper on young people's enthusiasm for joining the military, according to opinion surveys.
*The Army has a smaller-then-usual reservoir of enlistees as it begins the new recruiting year on Saturday. This pool comes from what the Army calls its delayed-entry program in which recruits commit to join the Army on condition that they ship to boot camp some months later.
He also does not present information on the recruiting goals themselves. It appears as if the recruiting goals may have been higher since there was a mandate to increase the number of personnel but the writer skirted the issue.
Agenda laden journalism is just a piss poor substitute for real reporting and journalism. The media is not a trustworthy partner in a news consumers daily life anymore.
posted by glenzo @ 10/01/2005 02:16:00 AM
2 Comments:
You'll have to excuse me for this suggestion and blatent oversimplification, but it seems that you are postulating that our economy (in such strength as to absorb $3 gas prices) and its "growth" are as strong a motivation for not joining the Army as the desire NOT TO BE KILLED. This is an illogical argument. The employment opportunities and benefits offered by the armed forces blow my mind considering to whom they will give jobs (nevermind guns...). At no other job, no matter how "strong" our economy "is" offers pay and benefits like the military to people who can barely graduate high school or drop out and earn GEDs. We do not live in an era where college grads will enlist at high numbers, regardless of economy, peace, or war. And those poor folk who are presented the alternatives off a crap job selling cell phones at the mall for $7 an hour or earning 30K a year in take home pay with no rent or groceries to buy pick the $7 an hour Verizon gig not because they are idiots who can't operate calculators but BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO GET SHOT.
Thank you Jeff for your comment.... I just want to reiterate my point. "Is This Just Junk Journalism, Lazy Work Or Designed To Further An Agenda Or Position?"
I don't want to argue that the economy may be in for hard times due to high gas prices and damage following the hurricanes, this, in fact, may be the case. But, these factors are recent and the historical context of the shortfall are when the economy was strong and adding hundreds of thousands of jobs a month.
My point is that the writer of the piece offers explanations on why he thinks that there is short-fall but critically leaves out one of the important aspects of recruiting and that is the economy. Why did he ignore this? I just don't know. You and the writer may be correct in asserting certain things but assertions don't are not what journalism is all about. Its about fact based reporting. And if you want to say that people aren't joing because they are afraid of being killed, this is an assertion or opinion and therefore I argue that in that contect, the economy has be mentioned too. And I think that as readers, we should demand and receive all information surrounding an issue and not just that which supports a point of view. That is not journalism, but opinion and that belongs on the editorial and op-ed pages.
Also, your points about the education of recruits I think is off base. When I was in the army in the early 1980's, it was coming out af a period of low moral and decline. The education levels may not have been very high 20 years ago, but it is not the case now. Even then, most officers had advanced degrees and many enlisted men had or were planning for college and university educations. So, your points on this are somewhat biased and not based on the facts as I know them. Its really not fair to disparage the folks in the military, they too are trying to make a better life for themselves and doing what they feel is right for themselves and/or for their country.
Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home