Quake3World

About what exactly is he 'blatantly overgeneralizing'?

insurance and dentistry in america is a waste of time...it don't cover jack cept for check ups...unless ur a moron...

Hannibal wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Here's Moore on Larry King squaring off against Gupta.

Clicky

yeesh. I watched the replay of this at 300 o'clock last night. What clearly stuck in Moore's craw was Gupta saying he 'fudged' (.i.e. lied about) the facts. And what that boiled down to was an argument over sources. That's just retarded. All that cunt had to say was "Moore got his numbers from X while we prefer to use Y for reasons A, B, C. " Then at least a substantive discussion/critique could have followed. Gupta and his producers dropped the ball in opting for the 'gotcha' language instead of clearly identifying why they differed from Moore.

Now if only Moore could have articulated his response like that, he would have solidified his complete ownage of CNN.

Nightshade wrote:About what exactly is he 'blatantly overgeneralizing'?

Well, from the link provided earlier:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/ ... _10017.php

An example (to me) of overgeneralizing is with emphasis on the

***rest of the Western world, everyone and anyone...***

[From Michael Moore's site see link above]"In the rest of the Western world, everyone and anyone can be a patient because everyone is covered. (And don't face exclusions for pre-existing conditions, co-pays, deductibles, and costly monthly premiums)."

moore's heart's in the right place, but I can't stand how he sneaks away from tough questions.

For example, when Gupta says that universal health care is not "free", Moore doesn't concede that, but rather talks about how ppl with universal health care end up spending less in taxes, than americans do to support private insurance.

The smart thing to do would be to say something like:

"well yes, you're absolutely right - it's not actually free. Nothing is. Just like police protection, roads, and the military isn't free"

(and then he could make his relevant point). He loses credibility when he avoids facing questions head on and intelligently.

hax103 wrote:

Nightshade wrote:About what exactly is he 'blatantly overgeneralizing'?

Well, from the link provided earlier:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/ ... _10017.php

An example (to me) of overgeneralizing is with emphasis on the

***rest of the Western world, everyone and anyone...***

[From Michael Moore's site see link above]"In the rest of the Western world, everyone and anyone can be a patient because everyone is covered. (And don't face exclusions for pre-existing conditions, co-pays, deductibles, and costly monthly premiums)."

But isn't that true?

Ryoki wrote:...a company bringing a channel into life that broadcasts all over the world for free, just to put themselves in a better light? Hmm, i dunno. I think NS is correct in thinking it has to do with control of information... but even then the question why a private company would set up a hugely expensive thing like this, with very little return value, remains.

I find it a bit puzzling.

What Puff said.

Plus this: Time Warner, in protecting its many business interests, lobbies the government heavily like all big companies do. In return for getting the legislations/regulations they want, a massive media mouthpiece not only allows them to persuade the population that their agenda is good/noble/just/whatever -- it also allows them a very, very appealing offer to the government they are lobbying.

After all, what government official would not like his or her policy agenda portrayed in a positive light on the biggest 24/7 news channel in the country? That's a lot of bargaining power.

These are some of the very worst things about media consolidation.

[xeno]Julios wrote:moore's heart's in the right place, but I can't stand how he sneaks away from tough questions.

For example, when Gupta says that universal health care is not "free", Moore doesn't concede that, but rather talks about how ppl with universal health care end up spending less in taxes, than americans do to support private insurance.

The smart thing to do would be to say something like:

"well yes, you're absolutely right - it's not actually free. Nothing is. Just like police protection, roads, and the military isn't free"

(and then he could make his relevant point). He loses credibility when he avoids facing questions head on and intelligently.

Ummm...

CNN: (PAUL KECKLEY-Deloitte Health Care Analyst): "The concept that care is free in France, in Canada, in Cuba - and it's not. Those citizens pay for health services out of taxes. As a proportion of their household income, it's a significant number … (GUPTA): It's true that the French pay higher taxes, and so does nearly every country ahead of the United States on that list."

THE TRUTH:

* 'SiCKO' never claims that health care is provided absolutely for free in other countries, without tax contributions from citizens. Former MP Tony Benn reads from the NHS founding pamphlet, which explicitly states that "this is not a charity. You are paying for it mainly as taxpayers." 'SiCKO' also acknowledges that the French are "drowning in taxes." Comparatively, many Americans are drowning in insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays and medical debt and the resulting threat of bankruptcy – half of all bankruptcies in the United States are triggered by medical bills. (Medical Bills Make up Half of Bankruptcies. Feb. 2005, MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895896/)

Hannibal wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Here's Moore on Larry King squaring off against Gupta.

Clicky

yeesh. I watched the replay of this at 300 o'clock last night. What clearly stuck in Moore's craw was Gupta saying he 'fudged' (.i.e. lied about) the facts. And what that boiled down to was an argument over sources. That's just retarded. All that cunt had to say was "Moore got his numbers from X while we prefer to use Y for reasons A, B, C. " Then at least a substantive discussion/critique could have followed. Gupta and his producers dropped the ball in opting for the 'gotcha' language instead of clearly identifying why they differed from Moore.

Did you see the part where they mentioned that Cuba was below the United States in healthcare ratings (39th as opposed to 37th), and insisted that Moore did not reveal this information to his audience?

They showed a screenshot of Moore's movie, that did in fact prominently display Cuba's rank -- but in their broadcast, they covered that part up with a CNN logo.

And they did this after receiving a letter from Moore's team stating that Cuba's rank was prominently displayed, and they had no reason to state otherwise.

This is materially different from just "taking a different approach" or "preferring different sources."

This seems to me like outright libel.

does anyone have a link to those healthcare ratings?

incidentally, in their haste to point out that cuba comes in #39 in the world for healthcare they might have spared a moment to reflect on the fact that THE WORLD'S SINGLE RICHEST NATION COMES IN AT #37 FOR FUCK'S SAKE

[xeno]Julios wrote:moore's heart's in the right place, but I can't stand how he sneaks away from tough questions.

For example, when Gupta says that universal health care is not "free", Moore doesn't concede that, but rather talks about how ppl with universal health care end up spending less in taxes, than americans do to support private insurance.

The smart thing to do would be to say something like:

"well yes, you're absolutely right - it's not actually free. Nothing is. Just like police protection, roads, and the military isn't free"

(and then he could make his relevant point). He loses credibility when he avoids facing questions head on and intelligently.

Yea, Moore does address this directly in the movie itself. He is being put on the defensive from attacks.

When they accuse him of portraying universal healthcare as free, they are falsifying facts from the film and yet again libeling him.

He definitely should take these questions/criticisms head-on instead of skirting them, but I can't honestly blame him for being defensive when they are outright lying about the information his movie actually presents.

This kind of "hit piece" journalism should not be allowed to be broadcast to begin with, and that is the larger issue he has started taking on, rather than defend specific points of his movie that should not need to be defended.

So again, I agree that it would be better for him to take these things head-on, but I can't blame him for pointing out the bigger picture and putting CNN's reporting in a larger perspective.

[xeno]Julios wrote:moore's heart's in the right place, but I can't stand how he sneaks away from tough questions.

For example, when Gupta says that universal health care is not "free", Moore doesn't concede that, but rather talks about how ppl with universal health care end up spending less in taxes, than americans do to support private insurance.

The smart thing to do would be to say something like:

"well yes, you're absolutely right - it's not actually free. Nothing is. Just like police protection, roads, and the military isn't free"

(and then he could make his relevant point). He loses credibility when he avoids facing questions head on and intelligently.

So perhaps he's not a good on-camera debater.

Frankly, I don't think he can loose any more credibility than he already has since he's constantly bashed and under a microscope from all sides and all medias. The only direction his credibility can go from today is up.

Sooner or later people will see the forest from the trees.

Nightshade wrote:

hax103 wrote:

Nightshade wrote:About what exactly is he 'blatantly overgeneralizing'?

Well, from the link provided earlier:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/ ... _10017.php

An example (to me) of overgeneralizing is with emphasis on the

***rest of the Western world, everyone and anyone...***

[From Michael Moore's site see link above]"In the rest of the Western world, everyone and anyone can be a patient because everyone is covered. (And don't face exclusions for pre-existing conditions, co-pays, deductibles, and costly monthly premiums)."

But isn't that true?

In the Netherlands (I thought we were a Western country) its not true in the everyone and anyone sense. One example would be the dental care. You can be in enormous pain and agony but if it happens to be from gum disease, you may not be covered and dentists have the right to refuse you.

Conditions beyond the basic expertise of General Practitioner stuff can be denied by the insurance companies so if you do have a pre-existing condition which requires a specialist, you can be denied, out-of-luck, hosed by both the insurance companies and the hospitals.

Another political facet is that in the Netherlands we face potentially huge problems from immigration and there is a segment of the population who are not citizens but in a gray area where its not clear what their rights are.

There are some holes in our system.

Nightshade wrote:snip

But Gupta was calling Moore on what Moore said in the interview.

And based on the quote you gave me, the smart thing for Moore to do would have been to say:

"I never said it was free in the film"

He never addressed the question directly and clearly.

R00k wrote:What Puff said.

Plus this: Time Warner, in protecting its many business interests, lobbies the government heavily like all big companies do. In return for getting the legislations/regulations they want, a massive media mouthpiece not only allows them to persuade the population that their agenda is good/noble/just/whatever -- it also allows them a very, very appealing offer to the government they are lobbying.

After all, what government official would not like his or her policy agenda portrayed in a positive light on the biggest 24/7 news channel in the country? That's a lot of bargaining power.

These are some of the very worst things about media consolidation.

I think you and puff fial to appreciate just how enormous CNN is, and how little it advertises. It's not the biggest 24/7 news channel in the country, it's the biggest 24/7 news channel in the world. They employ a vast amount of people all over the planet, and all of them have to be paid - there's no way they can break even from the small amount of advertising they do.

I appreciate the business-spin-protection argument, and the political-mouthpiece argument though.

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Nightshade wrote:snip

But Gupta was calling Moore on what Moore said in the interview.

And based on the quote you gave me, the smart thing for Moore to do would have been to say:

"I never said it was free in the film"

He never addressed the question directly and clearly.

Are you referring to the second clip? I haven't watched it yet. My point is that Gupta and CNN were just plain wrong, and if I were Moore I'd be highly pissed off about that and probably more focused on it, especially given the fact that they did the same thing when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out.

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Nightshade wrote:snip

But Gupta was calling Moore on what Moore said in the interview.

And based on the quote you gave me, the smart thing for Moore to do would have been to say:

"I never said it was free in the film"

He never addressed the question directly and clearly.

I thought he DID say it was free in the film?

Nightshade wrote:

sliver wrote:and im just watching it now, i would consider myself a lot more on Moore's side than CNN's, but hes not doing himself any favours by opening with a 90-second tirade about nothing in specific ("why don't you tell the truth?" well, Dr. Goombah or whatever clearly just presented a news story with what was likely factual information. none of it seemed particularly shocking or questionable to me, altho it was rather innocuous and didn't take a hard look at anything in Sicko either) -- and ending with a demand for an apology? why dont you shut up and talk facts like youre asking the CNN anchor to do.

Wow, someone's bought the entire bill of goods the networks are selling.

I want to get back to you about this because I know you're smarter than to jump to conclusions like that.

I'm going into my 4th year in Canada's best journalism program. I know good news stories from bad ones, and for that matter, good news corporations from bad ones. CNN doesn't compare favourably to much of anything except Fox.

The reason I don't take issue with Dr. Guptah orwhateverhisnameis's report is because there's nothing to take issue with. He doesn't dismantle Sicko, he makes a shallow analysis of it and the only criticisms/disagreements I recall are "his numbers are very slightly off in one particular statistic about the amoutn of money spent per person on healthcare" (I'm sure they both consulted different but reliable sources and got very slightly different figures; that is not the kind of thing that Mr Neurosurgeon would research and then sit down and home and decide how far he could warp the data just to say Moore was wrong) and "Cuba actually ranks below the US on the super duper list" (which is completely irrelevant, because the point of that scene is that at least the firefighters get treatment!). Oh yeah, and I think he mentioned that Canadians aren't exactly happy with our healthcare system; which is something Michael Moore apparently completely glossed over. The fact is, from my perspective, if you're a neurosurgeon and widely known reporter you have too much on the line to fuck up simple stories, and the fact that he apparently couldn't even find anything substantial to criticize about Moore or Sicko would indicate to me that he wasn't hellbent on destroying the film -- cuz then he would have found more to disagree with -- he just went out and tried to see if it was accurate (and in every important and substantial way, apparently, it was). [EDIT: which is not to suggest that I implicitly trust cnn fact-checking, but once again, if they can't find much to criticize in something as ideologically opposed to them as a Michael Moore film, I assume both sides ended up with much the same data or there would be more fireworks than this.]

So my only complaint -- while in the larger picture I fully agree that it's ridiculous the US is the only big western country without a proper healthcare system -- was that Michael Moore went on a pretty much empty rant and wasted his own airtime looking like a cunt (even though Gonnakillya is completely right, and a point-by-point analysis would have just been fudged aroudn by more CNN disinformation after he went off the air), and you think that means i buy into CNN "hook line and sinker"??? All I did was complain about the fat man's showmanship. Demand an apology, sure, but talk like you're in control of yourself and get there in a logical way, don't just spout a bunch of shit about pharmaceutical advertisements coming up, that's like being a bad insult comic live on the air when you could be saying something useful about your own newly-released, deeply-incisive documentary.

Transient wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Nightshade wrote:snip

But Gupta was calling Moore on what Moore said in the interview.

And based on the quote you gave me, the smart thing for Moore to do would have been to say:

"I never said it was free in the film"

He never addressed the question directly and clearly.

I thought he DID say it was free in the film?

NO, HE SPECIFICALLY SAID IT WAS NOT FREE, SEE ABOVE POSTS.

Ryoki wrote:

R00k wrote:What Puff said.

Plus this: Time Warner, in protecting its many business interests, lobbies the government heavily like all big companies do. In return for getting the legislations/regulations they want, a massive media mouthpiece not only allows them to persuade the population that their agenda is good/noble/just/whatever -- it also allows them a very, very appealing offer to the government they are lobbying.

After all, what government official would not like his or her policy agenda portrayed in a positive light on the biggest 24/7 news channel in the country? That's a lot of bargaining power.

These are some of the very worst things about media consolidation.

I think you and puff fial to appreciate just how enormous CNN is, and how little it advertises. It's not the biggest 24/7 news channel in the country, it's the biggest 24/7 news channel in the world. They employ a vast amount of people all over the planet, and all of them have to be paid - there's no way they can break even from the small amount of advertising they do.

I appreciate the business-spin-protection argument, and the political-mouthpiece argument though.

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/narr ... =4&media=5



I see lots of commercials on CNN. Lots of pharma commercials...

Ryoki wrote:

R00k wrote:What Puff said.

Plus this: Time Warner, in protecting its many business interests, lobbies the government heavily like all big companies do. In return for getting the legislations/regulations they want, a massive media mouthpiece not only allows them to persuade the population that their agenda is good/noble/just/whatever -- it also allows them a very, very appealing offer to the government they are lobbying.

After all, what government official would not like his or her policy agenda portrayed in a positive light on the biggest 24/7 news channel in the country? That's a lot of bargaining power.

These are some of the very worst things about media consolidation.

I think you and puff fial to appreciate just how enormous CNN is, and how little it advertises. It's not the biggest 24/7 news channel in the country, it's the biggest 24/7 news channel in the world. They employ a vast amount of people all over the planet, and all of them have to be paid - there's no way they can break even from the small amount of advertising they do.

I appreciate the business-spin-protection argument, and the political-mouthpiece argument though.

Have you ever looked at how much money advertisers pay for spots on channels like theirs?

CNN has entire segments of their shows sponsored by certain companies (Moore himself alluded to one segment that was sponsored by pharmaceutical companies). These companies pay millions of dollars for this kind of advertising. Just for one instance.

At that rate, a thousand ads in one year gets you straight into the billions, and they certainly have more than a thousand ads per year.

Some ads are worth more than others of course, but a pharmaceutical company will pay massive amounts of money to get an ad running right after a story about the latest healthcare plague, that their drug can treat.

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Nightshade wrote:snip

But Gupta was calling Moore on what Moore said in the interview.

And based on the quote you gave me, the smart thing for Moore to do would have been to say:

"I never said it was free in the film"

He never addressed the question directly and clearly.

Why must Moore address the most inane accusations over and over and over?

sliver wrote: *SNIP*

I think you make some valid points, but I also think there are a couple of things you're ignoring or glossing over.

First, you say that Gupta has only minor disagreements with the film, and finds numbers that only slightly disagree with Moore's because they are from different sources.

This is completely valid, and there are good reasons for this happening.

I think the issue though, is that Gupta didn't say, "Mr. Moore, your numbers are just slightly different from mine, because we prefer different sources, but for the most part we agree about things."

Instead, he said "Mr. Moore fudged the facts in his film."

This is an accusatory statement, implying that Moore either made up numbers, or exaggerated or changed them to fit his prerogative. This takes the discussion past a journalistic assessment of the film, into the territory of groundless accusations that would imply Moore is "lying by omission" for lack of a better phrase. This is what Moore is taking issue with, and I think he has good reason to, considering how many watch and still trust CNN.

Secondly, I think you may have missed this part of the discussion:

R00k wrote:Did you see the part where they mentioned that Cuba was below the United States in healthcare ratings (39th as opposed to 37th), and insisted that Moore did not reveal this information to his audience?

They showed a screenshot of Moore's movie, that did in fact prominently display Cuba's rank -- but in their broadcast, they covered that part up with a CNN logo.

And they did this after receiving a letter from Moore's team stating that Cuba's rank was prominently displayed, and they had no reason to state otherwise.

This is materially different from just "taking a different approach" or "preferring different sources."

This seems to me like outright libel.

edit: They apologized for this particular flub after the fact btw, but people had already seen the original airing, so the damage had already been done. I haven't seen where they apologized or corrected it live on the air anywhere, but they may have done that.

The worst part is that the thought that the mistake may have been accidental or coincidental seems pretty hard to believe.

R00k wrote: They showed a screenshot of Moore's movie, that did in fact prominently display Cuba's rank -- but in their broadcast, they covered that part up with a CNN logo.

This seems to me like outright libel.

You're right. I forgot about that one, I may have been in mid-wank during that part. It is quite shocking that CNN blatantly ignored the pre-broadcast corrections, especially simple ones like these that would take all of about 2 minutes to verify. RE: libel really depends on how much of a 'good faith' case Gupta/CNN could make on their reporting procedures...right, they'd probably be fucked

sliver wrote:stuff

The tone of your post struck me as though you thought CNN was being really quite reasonable and that Moore was an obnoxious gasbag. It seems to me that it is this and not the apparent quibbling (I don't think it is, I think the Gupta piece was irresponsible and libelous) over the facts and sources that CNN was aiming for. Portray Moore as an annoying muckraker (or simply reinforce same as many already feel that way) and his efficacy is greatly blunted. It appeared to have had that effect on you, and hence my post.
I think that he's got a lot of balls to go straight for the throat and demand answers for the media's horridly shameful mollycoddling of the Bush administration. Yeah, he risks coming off as a bit of a cunt, but only to those that aren't paying attention to the deeply flawed way the American journalism railroad is being run.