Skewed reporting

This piece is fascinating.

The interview someone who is a former guardsman, apparently. He served in Germany, never saw combat, doesn't like Bush, voted for Kerry and uses the "Vietnam" meme.

Apparently, we're supposed to think this is a balanced piece because:

a) He's a vet (who served as base security in Germany)

b) He voted for Kerry (but isn't a registered Democrat)

c) None of his friends or co-workers have defended the war in a long time (but would he likely be friends with people who would defend the war, given his outlook? And he's a Supervisor, so his employees are unlikely to disagree with him to his face)

d) He used the Vietnam war in a sentence

But the poll data referenced in the piece shows about the same results it has for quite some time now.

So, the question is, why didn't this reporter actually talk to someone else who polled differently? This is a one-sided puff piece produced to feed the echo chamber.

The poll data indicates a split almost down the middle, why not cover both aspects? Silly question, that wouldn't fit the agenda....