djsunkid:

If he's so convinced that there are these problems, then why does he act like it's beyond the pale to discuss them? I'm beginning to worry the man says "of course there are problems" because he knows that if he didn't, he'd get laughed out of the fucking studio--not because he really takes those problems seriously. Moore treats everything that might count against his position as some sort of corporate/media conspiracy designed to screw the American public. He'd do better if instead of dodging the question or getting outraged, he took legitimate criticism (like the discussion of wait times) head on. The points can successfully be addressed without the histrionics we saw with Blitzer, et al.

This is a public relations point--not a point on the issues--but it's an important one. It's precisely when he does shit like this that I begin to wonder if he's telling me the truth in his documentary. He comes off like a man who is so convinced of his rightness that he is beyond questioning (You're Canadian, and haven't had Captain Ideology as your president for the past 6 years, so maybe you aren't as tired of that as I am). He UNDEREMPHASIZES the inevitable tradeoffs involved in going single-payer, and acts insulted when anyone begins to discuss them--say, by engaging in a legitimate debate about which statistics are the proper ones to use.

Look, I think Moore is a decent guy and an effective activist. But it's becoming increasingly clear that he was serious when he said on Nightline that he views getting everyone covered as some sort of religious duty. I'm VERY wary of people like that. It doesn't matter to me whether they are Democrats or Republicans, or whether they are right on the issue at hand.

I'll continue to support nationalized healthcare, but based on his handling of the heart catheter issue, I'll continue to be sceptical of Moore as a filmmaker. That is, until qualm or you or someone else sets me straight.

Moore ++

Lou Dobbs --
Sanje Gupta --
Wolf Blitzer --

Friggin talking heads.

@Rotty,

Actually, not entirely true. There was a second part to that interview that isn't very popular, probably because it was about the actual issues and not this little argument that's erupted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F91hq6Js9Rs&eurl=

Also, aside from the interview with Wolf Blitzer, there are TONS of other TV shows that have had him on their show and they had a very interesting conversation about the real problems in health care. So this one specific time when Moore got side-tracked and decided to get upset on the innacurate segment played before -he was even allowed to speak-, I'll excuse, because I would've been plenty pissed off myself.

Check out just about every other TV show that allows guests, he's been on most of them already, and they've all been interesting. Also, it's also good to mention that aside from this segment that showed minor 'inaccuracies', all of the other TV shows that have had him have said that his documentary is not only powerful, but checks out with them as a good source of information. So if you want "the truth on exposed health care", i think it's safe to say at this point that the documentary itself is an excellent source.

Also, a 'good debate' between Gupta and Moore about the movie would actually be a bit hard to have, because it seems to me that aside from these very small differences in statistics, they both believe in the same thing. Several times Gupta heard Moore speak and said "I agree with all of that".

@Slyrr

While your argument makes some sense from a very greedy perspective (and yes, I know that one of humanity's biggest flaws is greed), I just can’t find myself convinced of it just yet. Have you ever suspected that maybe he actually, i don't know, stood behind his beliefs for reasons other than profit?
Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not one to trust anyone, and I expect the worst from people, but something about the whole "Moore is nothing but a money-grubbing asshole that's trying to manipulate society so he gets a fatter paycheck" that I've heard from so many people just doesn't make much sense to me. I guess because his history shows that he's genuinely cared for activism for pretty much his whole life. From being personally effected in the whole Flint, Michigan fiasco up til now. He throughout school did all kinds of positive activism, did some pretty crazy things (without anyone even knowing who he was). And now, having seen SiCKO (through videosift =p), the documentary itself is very genuine.
Will I hold what you said past him, registering it impossible to be true? Of course not, people never cease to surprise me. But I just haven't been convinced of it yet. All I've seen is just a bunch of insults without citation thrown at him because he does what he does, and not everyone agrees with it.


But about all of your other points, I can pretty much easily disagree with about all of them. First of all, it was 9th place at the Box Office. I'm not sure that's 'getting the tar beat out of it', considering it's a documentary. No, I'd think that should be under the "very successful" category. I'm not sure what documentary's you've seen recently that have beaten that (aside from Fahrenheit 9/11, of course).

And also, from my perspective, he didn't go "stomping with rage" at the fact that CNN shared their opinion about the film. He was "stomping with rage" at the fact that there was an entire session of nit picking going on towards his documentary before he was even allowed to speak. Not to mention pretty much the entire segment was proven false, as well. I don't know about you, Slyrr, but I'd be pretty mad too if I had made a documentary, only for some news segment to trample on it with inaccuracies, showing the public outright lies about the film. You're saying you wouldn't be mad about that? I think you would.

"I'm sure he agrees with free speech - but only the free speech that agrees with his point of view. CNN has just seen an example of how 'free' Moore would like speech to be by trying to stomp on them."
A good example of your accusation would be if Michael Moore tried to pay money to have that segment taken off of the air. THAT'd be him not believing in Free Speech. He did absolutely nothing that screamed "My opinion is the only correct opinion!". He hated the segment, got mad at its inaccuracies, and proved it wrong. If that's not free speech, then I don't know what is.

"Even conservative estimates say that for the government to pay for this so-called 'free' health coverage that Moore dreams of, your ever-ready goverment is poised to take at least 50% out of each and every one of your paychecks" Not that I’m supremely educated on this little nugget, but this sounds extremely distorted and very wrong. I'm DEFINITELY going to need citation on that one, or at least more reasoning behind this, because I don't see Canadians getting 50% of their paychecks taken out (Yes, I understand GROSS, not NET).

"We all saw what happened when Moore ran into an opposing point of view - he started gnashing his teeth and stamping his feet in rage. Because he THOUGHT these reporters were supposed to be on 'his' side and say nothing against him." I know, right? Because these guys were SO FOR HIM during his last documentary release, Fahrenheit 9/11. SO SUPPORTIVE that they attempted to rip it to shreds. Damn, I’m surprised Michael didn’t expect a hug from Blitzer before the interview started. Maybe THAT’S why he was upset.

"Fact is, this movie Moore made is so wrong in so many instances, that even the 'news' network that wrote glowing reviews for it couldn't believe all his distortions and inaccuracies." Um, what? First of all, that doesn't make sense. Second, if you're referring to CNN, they simply said "It was good, but these were the minor details that aren’t true…”. Even Wolf Blitzer after the interview admitted that he thought the documentary was especially powerful and overall “good”, and that he liked it. There are so many other sources (both right and left) that researched this documentary and said that it ‘checked out’ as being true. So what exactly are you referring to?

There’s more, but this is entirely too long already. Sorry for this.

fuck yeah. I'm glad they let his RANT about the war get on air. again...blitzer is a tool.

Blitzer is such a schmutcka

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

He's going to be on Larry King debating the medical journalist who says he fudged the figures tonight. Not to be missed. BTW, the doctor-jouranlist just apologized on Blitzer's show, admitting he had the figures wrong.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yay for Moore. Blitzer is a pompous windbag.

The look in Cheney's eyes in the last frames...you'd think he was imaging Blitzer at the business end of his hunting rifle!

Reminds me of the Clinton/Wallace interview. Blitzer took a pounding.
And what is up with the triple screen? Call Lewis Black to stage an intervention!

Blitzer gets the Disingenuous Reporter of the Day award: "I'm just asking questions." Yawn.

I'm not interested in promoting the guy, but I am concerned that folks aren't aware of his activities outside of the USA.

Background on David Duke from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke


NOTE: Blitzer has interviewed Duke on previous occasions.