04 January 2009

Results are in: Most believe milblogs are pro-military biased

The results from the most recent poll corroborate what I'm finding in the survey of milblogs that I'm currently in the midst of: the overwhelming majority (62%) of the people who took this poll believe that most milblogs are at least slightly biased in favor of the military. From my trolling, there are a few milblogs out there that are more negative, but they are certainly the minority.

Thanks to the 16 of you who voted - a new Soldiers in the Blogosphere polling record!

Do you think most milblogs are biased?
  • 18% (3) Absolutely! Most are pro-military and/or pro-war
  • 62% (10) Yes, they are somewhat pro-military and/or pro-war
  • 12% (2)No. Most are quite neutral.
  • 6% (1) Yes, most are somewhat negative about the military or war
  • 0% (0) Absolutely! Most are very negative about the military or war
So I ask: is this a problem? Is it somehow bad that most milblogs provide a positive outlook when discussing military matters in general or the wars specifically? Is this an important aspect of achieving balanced information when considering that most people believe that the mainstream media has a negative bias for the wars specifically?

I personally don't find this to be troubling as long as the positive outlook is based on facts. The idea of truthful information is paramount to creating and maintaining credibility. Interesting stories can be told, compelling drama can be generated, and readers will keep coming back for the next installment if the Soldier is credible.


  1. I think the problem is that if most military blogs are positively biased towards the military, we are less likely to find out about issues that would reflect badly on the military. Most people won't want to bash something they love and want people to like.

  2. You have a valid point, Akinoluna. But do you think that "issues that would reflect badly on the military" will be addressed internally using the traditional chain of command ... instead of a Soldier airing their grievances for the world stage? Perhaps there are things that aren't addressed; and if they were made public, pressure would be put on the military to fix things it may otherwise be ignoring.

    Does this risk outweigh the benefit of having more "positive" stories out there? Can we trust the mainstream media to find out about those negative things?