No opposite interpretation: both TFA and the WSJ article agree that the report[0] states there is little extremism among active duty members, which we already k

No opposite interpretation: both TFA and the WSJ article agree that the report[0] states there is little extremism among active duty members, which we already knew[1], and both agree that there is more extremism among veterans. The only difference is that WSJ highlights extremism among veterans is similar to in the general population (a level) and Vice highlights that extremism among veterans is growing (a delta). These spins are not contradictory. Edit: the report lends support (albeit with a "is slightly higher" against the WSJ position and a "may be" for the Vice position) to both, on p.iii: > IDA’s review found no evidence that the number of violent extremists in the military is disproportionate to the number of violent extremists in the United States as a whole, although there is some indication that the rate of participation by former service members is slightly higher and may be growing. [0] https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/p/pr/prohibited-extremist-activities-in-the-us-department-of-defense/p-33076.ashx https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/p/pr/prohib... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23412986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23412986 Edit 2: The Department should also work to counter false information campaigns and build critical thinking in the force by providing training and instruction on how to be a critical consumer of information. I should hope everyone agrees that "read the primary sources" is necessary to being a critical consumer of information! (for secondary sources, I recommend the STASM analysis framework from [Linebarger1954], a work which had been both inspired and cleared by a previous incarnation of the Department.)