As a journalist myself I have several comments regarding the WSJ article:

1. Whatever the comments the researcher gave in the interview (taking into consideration the context she gave after) it's clear that the publication did have an agenda/editorial focus.

2. Any research has limitations and error range that must be clear and public in the paper. If the sample taken isn't representative, it says almost nothing about the entirety of the demographic, if anything, says more about an specific part of it.

3. Knowing that the data collected isn't representative (you HAVE to know that 19 interviews are not representative if you're a journalist covering BTS and ARMY): is it ethical to use it as facts in your article? Is it a solid argument? Here, the publication failed.

4. If you know your research isn't final and it has to many holes, you shouldn't use it for references. Neither for other studies nor for an interview, and again, as a journalist you shouldn't quote it in your article (specially if it's the WSJ, please)

5/1. And final, as an ARMY we must know that any research our Academics ARMYs do won't be 100% representative since our fandom is way to big and diverse.
I think not even studies made by HYBE/BigHit Music themselves could be 100% accurate (when it comes to ARMY)

5/2. What we do have to acknowledge is the fact that these papers/studies help to document our fandom, even the parts of the demographic that aren't representative of the majority but do exists.

Interdisciplinary studies + diverse approach/focus help understand the complexity of our fandom.

None of them -individually- are facts about ARMY, if anything, all those studies together could represent -at some extent- our fandom dynamic

Ps. Held people accountable but don't be unnecessary rude towards others