Michael Moore Waves White Flag

[red states rule]

Taking a page from Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's playbook - Michael Moore is waving the white flag - to CNN


Moore Calls Truce With CNN Over 'Sicko'

Jul 16 09:28 PM US/Eastern
By DAVID BAUDER
AP Television Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - "Sicko" filmmaker Michael Moore called a truce Monday in his weeklong fight with CNN that flared when the network accused him of fudging facts in his popular documentary about the health-care system.
Moore had promised the network over the weekend that "I'm about to become your worst nightmare," leading CNN to post on its Web site a remarkably lengthy response to his accusations.

He noted in an interview Monday that CNN had admitted to two mistakes in reporting on "Sicko" and that he's willing to move on.

"I trust the intelligence of the American people," Moore told The Associated Press. "I don't think there's a whole lot more to do with this other than I and others are going to be a lot more skeptical with what I see on CNN."

CNN, in its statement, noted that it has given Moore multiple opportunities to discuss his concerns about the report on the air.

"It's ironic that someone who has made a career out of holding powerful interests accountable is so sensitive to having his own work held up to the light by impartial journalists, as we did in our examination of `Sicko,'" CNN said.

Shortly before Moore appeared for an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week, the network ran a report by Dr. Sanjay Gupta that had done some fact-checking on Moore's movie. Gupta's report made Moore furious, leading to a contentious segment with Blitzer and a debate with Gupta on "Larry King Live" later in the week.

Gupta addressed several statistics in "Sicko" before concluding: "No matter how much Moore fudged the facts—and he did fudge some facts—there is one thing everyone can agree on: the (health care) system here should be far better."

In Gupta's report, CNN had said that Moore had reported that Cuba spends $25 per person for health care. In fact, the movie estimates Cuba's spending at $251 per person. CNN blamed a transcription error for its mistake and apologized for it on and off the air.

http://breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QE1NE00&show_article=1&catnum=0

 

[Larkinn]

In your opinion Moore should have done...what exactly?

A truce is not the same thing as surrender. As much as Moore is a jackass, he at least has the sense to realize that once you begin a battle it can stop before everyone on one side is dead. You don't seem to share that belief rsr.

 

[Gem]

While I agree with Larkinn that it is always important to know when to end a battle...I disagree that Moore ended it out of anything other than self-preservation.

He wrote a hot-headed letter because he felt he could...my personal guess is that CNN contacted him and said something to the effect of, "If you want to play this game...we'll investigate the claims of all of your films...and you can come on and explain each and every one of your inconsistencies, misrepresentations, and misquotes....it will be a wonderful way for you to set the record straight and defend your work...and we'll be fair and let you have the time to talk."

And Moore realized that they were serious in airing all of his dirty laundry and called "UNCLE" as fast as humanly possible.

 

[Bern80]

Possibly. But alot of that information is already out there as far as Moore's fudgeing of the facts in his documentaries. "Michael Moore is a Big, Fat, Stupid, White Guy" was interesting read.

 

[Gem]

I agree, Bern...but you are assuming that most people who watch CNN have read that book, or investigated Moore's claims and his films. I believe most have not.

Moore is so popular, his work so watched, precisely because of this. He brings up interesting questions about topics people care about - but rarely does someone say, "Gee...I wonder if that was accurate."

I only started investigating Moore because I liked "Roger and Me," and wanted to know why some people were calling him a liar. From there I saw "Bowling for Columbine" and was totally shocked when I watched it again, knowing about all of the misinformation Moore used. I now know that Moore is a brilliant filmmaker, incredibly skilled at getting his point across...and I now know HOW he gets that point across.

But I spent the time...did the research, quite frankly...I did it simply because I was stuck on Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota under 14 feet of snow with my husband on alert and I didn't have much else to do, I also learned to cook and cross-stitch ...most people don't have that sort of free-time.

But many do watch CNN...and if CNN decided to discuss Moore's misrepresentations it would hurt him...and he knows it.

 

[Annie]

I agree, Bern...but you are assuming that most people who watch CNN have read that book, or investigated Moore's claims and his films. I believe most have not.

Moore is so popular, his work so watched, precisely because of this. He brings up interesting questions about topics people care about - but rarely does someone say, "Gee...I wonder if that was accurate."

I only started investigating Moore because I liked "Roger and Me," and wanted to know why some people were calling him a liar. From there I saw "Bowling for Columbine" and was totally shocked when I watched it again, knowing about all of the misinformation Moore used. I now know that Moore is a brilliant filmmaker, incredibly skilled at getting his point across...and I now know HOW he gets that point across.

But I spent the time...did the research...most people don't.

But many do watch CNN...and if CNN decided to discuss Moore's misrepresentations it would hurt him...and he knows it.

Have you ever noticed how many times those to the left recommend an article or book for others to read? Oftentimes the other side responds that they have read them. Suddenly there is no response? Why is that?

On the other hand, when it's suggested to those on the left to read the Koran or Hanson or other books or articles, the silence is deafening.

I'm left to conclude that they can read, but only that which says what they wish to hear. When some says, "Cool, let's debate it", they take a powder. On the other hand, they are unwilling to entertain their own thinking by reading something that may challenge their preconceived ideas.

 

[Larkinn]

Have you ever noticed how many times those to the left recommend an article or book for others to read? Oftentimes the other side responds that they have read them. Suddenly there is no response? Why is that?

On the other hand, when it's suggested to those on the left to read the Koran or Hanson or other books or articles, the silence is deafening.

I'm left to conclude that they can read, but only that which says what they wish to hear. When some says, "Cool, let's debate it", they take a powder. On the other hand, they are unwilling to entertain their own thinking by reading something that may challenge their preconceived ideas.

Thanks for concluding that we liberals can read. Really, your genorosity knows no bounds.

This has nothing to do with right v left. Both sides have their demagogues and their populists. Both are equally disturbing in my eyes. Although I find the right more disgusting because of the racist/homophobic element present in some of the far right, neither are worth listening too.

 

[Annie]

Thanks for concluding that we liberals can read. Really, your genorosity knows no bounds.

This has nothing to do with right v left. Both sides have their demagogues and their populists. Both are equally disturbing in my eyes. Although I find the right more disgusting because of the racist/homophobic element present in some of the far right, neither are worth listening too.

Sorry, but I've found this way too often. Truth is unfortunately, that the left is far more likely to say, 'Read this, then you'll know why...' problem is, I've already read it and am willing to discuss it, they don't want to. Why is that, I mean as a representative of that group?

On the other hand, when I say, have you read 'this' or 'that', or how about trying 'this' or 'that'? I find silence.

 

[Gem]

Actually, I'm speaking more about middle-of-the-road, mainstream Americans...who by-and-large don't read for any number of reasons.

Many Americans just don't have the time to read...but many will see a movie. So they will rent Fahrenheit 9/11 because everyones talking about it...and maybe they think...hmm...I wonder if thats all true...but they don't take the time to look into it...and thats where the danger lies.

Its equally dangerous to listen to someone on the far right...and then not verify the info.

Moore, in my opinion, realized that CNN might be willing to verify his information...so he ducked his tail between his legs and ran away to start his next movie.

 

[Annie]

Actually, I'm speaking more about middle-of-the-road, mainstream Americans...who by-and-large don't read for any number of reasons.

Many Americans just don't have the time to read...but many will see a movie. So they will rent Fahrenheit 9/11 because everyones talking about it...and maybe they think...hmm...I wonder if thats all true...but they don't take the time to look into it...and thats where the danger lies.

Its equally dangerous to listen to someone on the far right...and then not verify the info.

Moore, in my opinion, realized that CNN might be willing to verify his information...so he ducked his tail between his legs and ran away to start his next movie.

I wasn't speaking to you in particular, Gem. Rather those that post on messageboards and such. Over and over it's the same thing. Those on 'left' that present themselves as rational suggest readings on particular topics, when someone responds that they've already read whatever, silence.

On the other hand, when someone from the right brings up a book or article, there is rarely a response.

I'm left to conclude:

1. The left that posts and tries to 'call' articles or books feels they cannot defend the positions of such, thus fails to try.

2. The left is unwilling to expose themselves to what may be challenging materials, either ideologically or comprehensively.

 

[Larkinn]

Sorry, but I've found this way too often. Truth is unfortunately, that the left is far more likely to say, 'Read this, then you'll know why...' problem is, I've already read it and am willing to discuss it, they don't want to. Why is that, I mean as a representative of that group?

And you are completely unpartisan and able to judge this fairly, right? Peh...your impression of this come from your bias, not from reality. Besides the fact that in America, the more educated you are the more likely you are to be liberal.

Many Americans just don't have the time to read...but many will see a movie. So they will rent Fahrenheit 9/11 because everyones talking about it...and maybe they think...hmm...I wonder if thats all true...but they don't take the time to look into it...and thats where the danger lies.

Its equally dangerous to listen to someone on the far right...and then not verify the info.

The thing is, there are mistakes in everything. Moore gets trashed because he is popular, and has a message that a lot of people like. He is a demagogue and yes he has mistruths in his movies. But I am realizing more and more how untrue everything is. I think that Moore has more untruths than say a normal scholarly article, but I don't think its more than demagogues like O'reilly or Limbaugh.

You need to look for bias and mistruths in whatever you read. And you can never be guaranteed that you are getting correct information. One of the more amazing examples of this is for a test that I teach. There are probably 10 or 15 mainstream books that teach to this test. They cost anywhere from $20 to $75 each. By and large they are awful. Its not that they teach badly, although thats part of it, its that some of the information in there is just flat out wrong. And this is something that is objective. Think about how much more information is out there when we are dealing with subjective things or when they are partially subjective. Its a little bit scary really.

 

[Annie]

And you are completely unpartisan and able to judge this fairly, right? Peh...your impression of this come from your bias, not from reality. Besides the fact that in America, the more educated you are the more likely you are to be liberal.



The thing is, there are mistakes in everything. Moore gets trashed because he is popular, and has a message that a lot of people like. He is a demagogue and yes he has mistruths in his movies. But I am realizing more and more how untrue everything is. I think that Moore has more untruths than say a normal scholarly article, but I don't think its more than demagogues like O'reilly or Limbaugh.

You need to look for bias and mistruths in whatever you read. And you can never be guaranteed that you are getting correct information. One of the more amazing examples of this is for a test that I teach. There are probably 10 or 15 mainstream books that teach to this test. They cost anywhere from $20 to $75 each. By and large they are awful. Its not that they teach badly, although thats part of it, its that some of the information in there is just flat out wrong. And this is something that is objective. Think about how much more information is out there when we are dealing with subjective things or when they are partially subjective. Its a little bit scary really.

great multi-quote, without attribution. as for my 'quote' to which you responsd,

And you are completely unpartisan and able to judge this fairly, right? Peh...your impression of this come from your bias, not from reality. Besides the fact that in America, the more educated you are the more likely you are to be liberal.

Unpartisan? Where was that claimed? What is the reality that trumps my 'bias'? Claimed of course, by you. The more educated, liberal meme, is not something proved out, that I've ever seen. Rather it's a talking point of the left.

 

[CSM]

.. Besides the fact that in America, the more educated you are the more likely you are to be liberal. Where the heck did you get that "fact"???? I suspect it is more wishful thinking than a proven "fact"


The thing is, there are mistakes in everything. Moore gets trashed because he is popular, and has a message that a lot of people like. He is a demagogue and yes he has mistruths in his movies. But I am realizing more and more how untrue everything is. I think that Moore has more untruths than say a normal scholarly article, but I don't think its more than demagogues like O'reilly or Limbaugh.

You need to look for bias and mistruths in whatever you read. And you can never be guaranteed that you are getting correct information. One of the more amazing examples of this is for a test that I teach. There are probably 10 or 15 mainstream books that teach to this test. They cost anywhere from $20 to $75 each. By and large they are awful. Its not that they teach badly, although thats part of it, its that some of the information in there is just flat out wrong. And this is something that is objective. Think about how much more information is out there when we are dealing with subjective things or when they are partially subjective. Its a little bit scary really.

You may have hit on something in the statement regarding subjective vs. the objective.

 

[Bern80]

I only started investigating Moore because I liked "Roger and Me," and wanted to know why some people were calling him a liar. From there I saw "Bowling for Columbine" and was totally shocked when I watched it again, knowing about all of the misinformation Moore used. I now know that Moore is a brilliant filmmaker, incredibly skilled at getting his point across...and I now know HOW he gets that point across.

a teacher had us watch Roger and Me when was in undergrad. I recall liking at the time. Moore came off as whitty and trying to get to the bottom of some evil conspiracy. I guess that's a credit to his filmaking.

Saw some of Bowling for Columbine. Growing up a hunter and Sportsman I know most of that movie to be bogus as well.

But I spent the time...did the research, quite frankly...I did it simply because I was stuck on Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota under 14 feet of snow with my husband on alert and I didn't have much else to do, I also learned to cook and cross-stitch ...most people don't have that sort of free-time.

Minot, ND in winter......that is truly unfortunate.

 

[JeffWartman]

Who the fuck cares?

 

[Annie]

Who the fuck cares?

Obviously not you.

 

[JeffWartman]

Obviously not you.

You must have graduated at the top of your class.

 

[Annie]

You must have graduated at the top of your class.

Could be, did you?

 

[Larkinn]

great multi-quote, without attribution. as for my 'quote' to which you responsd, Unpartisan? Where was that claimed? What is the reality that trumps my 'bias'? Claimed of course, by you. The more educated, liberal meme, is not something proved out, that I've ever seen. Rather it's a talking point of the left.

Studies say otherwise.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=945

Funny this never hit the oh so liberal MSM, isn't it?

And yes, I would say I am less biased than you. I don't post articles from rabid left-wing sites. I do criticize the left, and don't agree with many things they do and I really dislike lefty demagogues. I cheered when Air America failed.

 

[JeffWartman]

Could be, did you?

Do you understand sarcasm?