--

CNN vs. Moore - so very sad

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/15/moore.gupta/index.html

This is really pitiful. Moore and CNN are yelling at each other about minor variances in reported numbers.

Moore: "The average cost per patient in the US is $7000, in Cuba it's $229"
CNN: "No, you idiot - in the US it's $6500, in Cuba it's $251. So nyah!"

Uh, so a factor of 26 is sooooo much better than a factor of 30?

It's all like this - every "fact check" on Moore's movie DOESN'T MAKE ANYTHING BETTER. If you took everything the way CNN said it, it's still very sad.

I'm pretty sure Moore's just playing the game for ratings, but he continues to whinge about being libeled when everyone's rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Gupta said at the end of his first review that Moore has a point, and we really need to be concerned about the state of health care in this country - so they agree. But the silly fact fight rages on.
Permalink Send private email Philo 
July 15th, 2007 6:55pm
"CNN: "Moore asserts that the American health care system spends $7,000 per person on health. Cuba spends $25 dollars per person. Not true. But not too far off. The United States spends $6,096 per person, versus $229 per person in Cuba.""



the original CNN report made the claim that moore made the claim that cuba spends _$25_

moore never made that claim. not even close.

moore is in the right over this, cnn were either acting in bad faith or being entirely incompetent.

and it matters because increasingly the media has a reputation for doing exactly that.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 15th, 2007 7:20pm
Recall that lots of them are in journalism because:

1. They're attractive on TV
2. They took the easy courses in college
Permalink Send private email xampl 
July 15th, 2007 7:51pm
> 2. They took the easy courses in college

Gupta is a neurosurgeon.
Permalink suck on them apples 
July 15th, 2007 7:53pm
Specific != General
Permalink Send private email xampl 
July 15th, 2007 7:54pm
Thank God. Generalities are boring.
Permalink suck on them apples 
July 15th, 2007 7:56pm
1. There seems to be the assumption that since $25 and $229 are both such astonishingly small (almost negligible) annual healthcare spends there is essentially no difference between the two - so where's the argument?

2. Cuba spends its $29 or $229 (whatever) on everybody according to need. The US spends its $6K/person on those who can afford to pay.

Much depends on one's POV - should the rewarding criteria be overall patient outcome quality or the size of insurance companies' annual dividends?
Permalink trollop 
July 15th, 2007 8:04pm
> Thank God. Generalities are boring.

SoP!
Permalink Gecko 
July 15th, 2007 8:39pm
> SoP!

I am the generality that subsumes the All which means I am an infinite fabric of specifics and can not be therefor said to be boring.
Permalink son of parnas 
July 15th, 2007 8:41pm
>Gupta said at the end of his first review that Moore has a
>point, and we really need to be concerned about the state of
>health care in this country - so they agree. But the silly
>fact fight rages on.

I think it stems from:

A) The fact that he tried to hold Moore to task in an utterly mind-numbingly stupid way (getting his OWN facts wrong while trying to critique Moore's).

B) The fact that he tried to use an "impartial" expert who had links to the drug companies and THEN denied it.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 16th, 2007 4:52am
C) This isn't by any means unusual, and personally, I've thought since about 2003 that this kind of thing is the actually the primary reason why your democracy is so screwed up. So it is important.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 16th, 2007 4:54am
Here's clear unbiassed opinion on the subject. Read the last para where VA care is held up as a warning about the quality to be expected from public care.

http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=1011327&srvc=home

Fact is, most western countries manage it.
Permalink trollop 
July 16th, 2007 6:04am
if the general populace is too busy being tuned into "American Idol", who will police the press?
Permalink $-- 
July 16th, 2007 7:03am
CNN's response is rather dishonest.  They questioned the facts of Moore's movie and now that he backs them up and asks for an apology they explode the argument and frame it like a debate.  They're also isolating the scope to Gupta vs. Moore when there are larger institutional shortcomings here.

The casual observer just goes "meh! it's a wash".

It's a work of art, really.
Permalink Michael B 
July 16th, 2007 11:20am
CNN made one mistake the $25 instead of $251 of Cuba's per capita expenditures. The other things Moore criticized Gupta for criticizing ... it's all a matter of emphasis.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article.php?id=10017

For example:


CNN: The United States ranks highest in patient satisfaction.

THE TRUTH:

    * True, ....

    * Patients may be satisfied in America, .....

    * It's not that other countries are unhappy with their health care – for example, "70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable."


Well, Ok, so the CNN report was correct in saying patient satisfaction is very high in the US (ie for those who are patients, and for this nebulous thing called satisfaction)?

So why is Moore ballyhooing again?
Permalink Send private email strawdog sobriquet 
July 16th, 2007 11:36am
>So why is Moore ballyhooing again?

Michael B hit the nail on the head.

The reason he went on about the Iraq war and he has blown this up is that despite it seeming like an isolated incident, it's actually standard operating procedure for CNN (though the rest are no better).

I bet the thing that really got to him on air was that they pilloried *his* facts which were right, while getting one of the "criticized facts" totally and unequivocally wrong. The irony would be sickening if anybody actually got it.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 16th, 2007 11:43am
Media giants perpetuate this fantasy that their customers are their viewers and not their advertisers.
Permalink Michael B 
July 16th, 2007 11:50am
CNN on Moore: "He's right 90%, but let me tell you what he fudges ..."

Moore on CNN: "They are right about 90% of the 10% that they criticize but let me talk about the 10% of the 10% they messed up on [ie, the $25/$251 boondoggle] ..."


WTF? We've heard more about this $25/$251 business than about anything else. It's stupid, but it's kinda common for people to be numerically challenged (how anyone thought $25 per year could be sufficient medical care is beyond me .. obviously they were just transposing text around).

This typo is being used as an example of the MSM's malfeasance. That's unfortunate. There's a large difference between it and the MSM's wholesale unquestioning acceptance of the WMD line. Which wasn't about some one intern making a booboo somewhere. That was a collusive blindness for the 'good of the union'. But it's hard to argue the MSM still takes everything the Bush administration says uncritically.
Permalink Send private email strawdog sobriquet 
July 16th, 2007 12:07pm
>The reason he went on about the Iraq war and he has blown this up

...is because he's trying to legitimize everything he has done by single-mindedly and petulantly focusing on one single criticism that wasn't factual, trying to frame it that he's a victimized hero that the MSM is out to get.

Moore has a well-documented history of being an exaggerator that takes extraordinary liberties with the truth (aka lies) when it serves his message. He's now trying to rewrite history by implying that every criticism of him must be wrong (which, clearly, a lot of his fans are eating up).

As an aside -- many of his critics do the same thing. If one thing that Moore says is wrong, then pretend that everything he says must be wrong. Both sides are *exactly the same*.
Permalink DF 
July 16th, 2007 12:08pm
>Moore has a well-documented history of being an exaggerator
>that takes extraordinary liberties with the truth (aka lies)

The fun thing about Moore is that nobody ever comes right out and accuses him of lying, but many hate him anyway like you do. He has a battalion of VERY well resourced detractors who analyse EVERY single thing he says and try and twist not only the truth but what *he* said and what *he* meant, and try and make it out like what he said was a lie.

Then they pillory him for it, and suckers like you lap it up, paying only barely enough attention to know that they said something (so you can say with full confidence that it's "well documented" and feel all smug).

Whereas the media (CNN, Fox, CBS, everybody...) very RARELY gets taken to task on ANYTHING, so their standards of truth are pathetic, and lie very regularly as *well* as twisting the truth, distorting facts much, much, MUCH more.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 16th, 2007 12:30pm
>The fun thing about Moore is that nobody ever comes right out and accuses him of lying, but many hate him anyway like you do.

And you love him! You want to marry him, don't you?

Grow the fuck up. I hate *propaganda* in all its forms. You think it's perfectly fine if it balances out the opposition. No thanks.

>Then they pillory him for it, and suckers like you lap it up

The only sucker is you, Colm.

>paying only barely enough attention to know that they said something (so you can say with full confidence that it's "well documented" and feel all smug

WATCH HIS FUCKING MOVIES! Jesus, if you have even half a brain or more the fact that he takes extraordinary liberties with the truth smacks you in the face. Actually, it punches you in the face repeatedly, and then pours some vinegar on the bloody pulp.

You thank him and ask for more.

>Whereas the media (CNN, Fox, CBS, everybody...) very RARELY gets taken to task on ANYTHING, so their standards of truth are pathetic, and lie very regularly as *well* as twisting the truth, distorting facts much, much, MUCH more.

If one side does it...

Remarkable, really.

I subscribe to two Canadian national newspapers -- The Toronto Star and the National Post. The Toronto Star is a leftist idealist rag where they spin every bit of news to support their agenda. The National Post is a right wing, leave the rich alone boost the military abolish universal healthcare alternative that spins the news the way they want it. See, I recognize the bullshit in both of their approaches. You'd be embracing the Star, declaring that it's all good because the Post does it as well.
Permalink DF 
July 16th, 2007 12:36pm
Interesting, DF.  So, do you find the Right-wing propaganda balances out the left-wing propaganda?  Or is the truth lost by both sides?
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 16th, 2007 12:43pm
It makes it a difficult chore to understand an issue, because seldom is there an honest agent giving the straight facts with the minimum of color and bias.

Instead both sides are polarized, exaggerating the opposition to the point of that any rational discussion is lost.
Permalink DF 
July 16th, 2007 12:47pm
Sad.  That was what I feared would happen.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 16th, 2007 12:49pm
One interesting note about the National Post -- it was actually started by Conrad Black (err... Lord Conrad Black) -- who was recently convicted of fraud in Chicago* and is now awaiting sentencing -- to provide a conservative perspective in the Canadian news market.

*- Conrad was a dual Canadian/British citizen, although he was primarily a Canadian. When Britain offered him a lordship, he renounced his Canadian citizenship (Canadian citizens are not supposed to take foreign titles, as it implies a confusion about loyalties), although he still lived in Toronto. Now that he is a convicted felon and a non-resident, he is caught in the situation where he is barred entry to Canada. Further, he cannot apply for citizenship because we don't take felons. A bit of enjoyable schadenfreude can be had from the whole situation, especially if one had to endure his early "Canada is a shithole third world country" (I'm paraphrasing) articles.
Permalink DF 
July 16th, 2007 12:53pm
>I hate *propaganda* in all its forms. You think it's
>perfectly fine if it balances out the opposition. No thanks.

I hate propaganda in all its forms too. However, Michael Moore is not propaganda. The accusation is levelled at him enough that the credulous people (like you) eventually believe it, but he is representing nobody's interests except his own.

He is opinionated, biased and sometimes wrong, but he is not propaganda. CNN *is* propaganda, however, it is inconsistent in whom it represents. In this case, the cover was blown open and it was EXPOSED by Michael Moore precisely who it was representing.

>The only sucker is you, Colm.

The irony of your "grow the fuck up" followed by this is unparalleled - except perhaps by the irony of CNN attacking Moore's correct facts with invented figures of their own.

>WATCH HIS FUCKING MOVIES! Jesus, if you have even half a
>brain or more the fact that he takes extraordinary
>liberties with the truth smacks you in the face.
>Actually, it punches you in the face repeatedly, and
>then pours some vinegar on the bloody pulp.

And yet if there were such obvious examples, you would currently be punching me in the face with them. But the only example you've given (about the unlocked doors in Canada across the border from Detroit) was actually CORRECT and you were WRONG.

>You thank him and ask for more.

Actually I lap your stuff up and ask for more. Because you get it wrong so often, and so hilariously, and with so much venom that I'm very amused.

>If one side does it...

You missed my point entirely (funny that). BECAUSE Michael Moore is taken to task, he CAN'T play fast and loose with the facts so he DOESN'T. CNN DOES because it CAN get away with it.

>You'd be embracing the Star, declaring that it's all
>good because the Post does it as well.

I don't know what you do, but I suspect you read both, think they're both bad, but still ultimately believe that the truth is half way between the two.

About the only news media I can stand now is Reuters or the Economist, and even they are both deeply, deeply flawed. The Economist actually has decent analysis even though their opinions are wacky, and Reuters reports without bias, even though they're too reliant on PR.

Now.

Grow the fuck up. And at some point admit you were wrong about reddit's demographics, please.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 16th, 2007 6:01pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics