Troops supporting Obama with their wallets?

An entry on the St. Petersburg Times military blog touted as breaking news on the Times' homepage reports that troops deployed overseas have contributed six times more money to Sen. Barak Obama's presidential campaign than to Sen. John McCain's.

The story appears designed to imply that military service members do not support their own mission and have thrown their support behind Obama, who has opposed U.S. involvement in Iraq from the beginning.

But the blog entry omits some important information.

A chart on the OpenSecrets Web site shows the total number of donations to each candidate.
There were 135 donations for Obama and 26 for McCain. With over 170,000 military personnel deployed in Iraq alone, the total percentage donating to Obama stands at a wopping .00008 percent.

That doesn't even take into account the fact that the donations represent all troops deployed over seas, which include personnel stationed in non-war zones.

Statisticians call small numbers like that insignificant.

The real story here is that over 99 percent of all military personnel deployed overseas have made no campaign contributions to a presidential candidate.

Of course, that doesn't make for a very interesting story - and doesn't make a political point.

Militant attack in Afghanistan kills nine U.S. soldiers

An attack on a U.S. base in Afghanistan killed 9 U.S. soldiers and wounded at least 15 more on Sunday. The attack was the deadliest in Afghanistan in three years, according to an AP story in the St. Petersburg Times.

While violence has decreased and the security situation in Iraq has drastically improved, the situation has deteriorated in Afghanistan in recent months.

The U.S. military is considering boosting its numbers in Afghanistan. U.S. officials say they need about 10,000 more troops in Afghanistan.

Many analysts contend the Pakistani government's inability or unwillingness to gain control of its mountainous border area has given Qaeda and Taliban forces a safe haven, contributing to their increased strength and organization.

* * *

The AP story that I based this post on ran on the front page of the St. Petersburg Times Web page on Sunday night. I don't argue with the newsworthiness of the story, or their decision to give the story such play, but it underscores a bias in main stream media reporting on the war on terror.

I've not seen one story on the Times' home page highlighting any of the progress in Iraq. Just one week of blogging has proven to me it's not for the lack of such stories.

Therein lies the disservice of the main stream media to the American people. The press serves and integral role in a democratic society. People need information to self govern. But our press seems intent on only reporting part of the information. How can a citizen truly inform themselves when half of the story never gets told, or remains buried?

When a citizen reads a major newspaper or watches broadcast news, they can't help but come away with the impression that our efforts in the war on terror are falling short. This impression leads to a widespread lack of support of American efforts as we confront a dangerous enemy intent on destroying our way of life.

I'm not calling for the media to downplay or ignore the bad news. I'm not criticizing the Times for highlighting this story. I'm criticizing the Times for ignoring the hundreds of other stories that hold equal importance.

I am calling for the press to do its job - Its whole job of informing the American people. Not simply bolstering their political agenda.