The Sanjay Gupta - Michael Moore thing.

So the backstory is: on July 9, 2007, Sanjay Gupta did a brief "fact check" segment on The Situation Room, in which he said that Michael Moore had "fudged facts" in Sicko. Both Moore and CNN quickly released point-by-point rebuttals and counter-rebuttals respectively. CNN contends that Moore was cherry-picking data in a statistically invalid way; Moore contends that CNN is sponsored by drug companies and so is being unfairly biased. CNN soon admitted to two factual errors on Gupta's part:

The first is one in which Gupta complains that Moore says Cuba only pays $25 per person per year in health care costs, when in reality the cost is ten times that. As it turned out, Moore actually did say that Cuba pays $251 per person per year. CNN attributed Gupta's misstatement to a transcription error in the fact-finding process.

As for the second? Moore claimed that Gupta had as his only guest in the segment a member of a Republican think-tank. Gupta denied this, and said the guest's only affiliation was with Vanderbilt University. Gupta was incorrect; the guest was a member of a Republican think-tank, and the chyron even said as much on air.

That said: is this dust-up a cause for major concern, or is it not?

The Moore incident certainly epitomizes the problems with Gupta, but it not the SOLE reason people oppose him. Making a poll in which you ask if that event ALONE is reason to oppose him simply ignores his entire body of work. He is a shill, he has been one for a long time, and is fundamentally unsuited ideologically for a Democratic administration promising any kind of change from the status quo.

I have simply seen many people make reference to the Gupta-Moore dust-up. I would like to know if people find this particular incident a cause for concern or not. I do not ask if that event alone is reason to oppose him; you will note that the poll does not say anything about opposition to or approval of Gupta. The first option does indeed suggest opposition; however, that is simply a response for people who would find this particular incident so offensive that it alone would disqualify Gupta.

If you would like to make a poll in which you post evidence that Gupta is a "shill" and then ask if that evidence gives people concern, feel free to do so.

Your "poll" (aren't quotes fun?) attempts to make the opposition to Gupta narrow down to a simple Moore vs Gupta issue. This would enable you to paint Gupta as a not so unacceptable choice, by throwing out everything else he has said and done. Furthermore, there is a small subset of people who for whatever reason cannot stomach Moore, so your poll forces them to Gupta's side by default. It's an obvious tactic, but kudos to you anyway because it is potentially effective.

Oddly, I respect you. I consider you the opposition, but I respect you nonetheless. You actually don't completely suck at what you do, whereas most of your compadres do.

Oh and, just to show I understand the game, your next response is where you mock me. Of course I may have just limited the effectiveness of that tactic, so perhaps you will go for puzzlement instead. Either way, I'm done I think. No more point as I've said all I intended to. Those who get it will, and those who don't, well, I can't help them.

for incorporating an anticipatory straw man in your argument.

Kudos, you would have done well for yourself on irc in the 90s.

You consider me the opposition, and so assume that everything I do is, well, done in opposition. I'm just pulling a particular subset of the debate (and an important one; even Paul Krugman has weighed in) out into the open, with absolutely no editorial commentary whatsoever, and asking DUers to weigh in on this particular subset of the debate.

I mean, I understand taking the issues as "our side versus the opposition," but when that viewpoint is taken to the extreme, it really cuts off debate prematurely. You seem to be saying (and I'm not trying to insult), "Well, this poll does not paint this particular sub-issue as a clear reason to reject Gupta, so it must be designed to promote Gupta."

Tell me: given that you think the exchange in the poll is not reason enough to reject Gupta (but that there are other, valid reasons to oppose his nomination), did you vote for the first option anyway?

You have defined your opponents' position in such a way that weakens it. That is a way - a covert and dishonest way - to make an argument.

and asked if that issue is a problem.

You have described the issue in the most limited and benign way you possibly could - minimized and trivialized it - and then asked if people think it is a big deal or not. Of course it doesn't seem to be a big deal the way you described it. That is a push poll.

I don't think anyone here would have any objection to the appointment were it merely a matter of a brief argument with Moore over a couple of minor points on which honest people could have differing opinions.

an honest debate over points, in which Gupta made two egregiously counterfactual statements that many people see as casting significant doubt on his trustworthiness. I personally believe the second statement (about his guest) to put Gupta in a very bad light, as it supports Moore's belief that Gupta's segment was biased. However, I did not editorialize at all in the OP. I did not say anything that was untrue, I was careful to avoid any emotionality whatsoever, and I did not omit anything of great importance. In fact, your complaint about this being "benign and limited" seems to support me here: you are upset not that I have pushed a viewpoint, but rather that I have not pushed the emotional response that you are looking for. If you believed the Moore issue was as significant as you claim it is, then wouldn't you think that the facts alone declare its significance without my having to spice them up?

There are, of course, other issues regarding Gupta. However, I didn't write, "Sanjay Gupta: approve or disapprove?" Rather, I asked people only for their opinion on the significance of the Moore issue, and presented the facts of the Moore issue in as dry and evenhanded a manner as I could.

You constructed the poll in such a way that it would maximize the apparent support for your position.

You precluded the possibility that people think the encounter is something other than a minor difference of opinion in a brief argument. That undermines the position of your opponents on this. Once you have established that, yes, you go on to be "dry and evenhanded."

Was Gupta's performance part of an intentional and orchestrated, misleading and deceptive propaganda effort, and were people misled about his motives and connections? If he intentionally and knowingly lied, and did so "for hire" - and the evidence that he did is compelling - rather than merely disagreeing with Moore honestly, that would mean that the encounter has far greater significance then your poll allows.

I should have theorized an unsupported "intentional...propaganda effort." Again, you are not so much complaining that I wrote a push poll, but that I failed to. A push poll would have been if I said "Moore and Gupta honestly disagreed, but Gupta made some errors," or if I had said "because of this evil conspiracy Gupta lied." I didn't do either.

I did not state that Moore and Gupta disagreed for honest reasons, nor did I say that Gupta disagreed with Moore for sinister reasons. I presented no bias either way. I simply stated that they disagreed, and said what they disagreed about. It's fine if you're angry that I didn't push your theory as to why they disagreed, but you should be sure to say that you desire a push poll, not that I wrote one.

"The facts" are not merely that Gupta was wrong.

You did in essence say "Moore and Gupta honestly disagreed, but Gupta made some errors," by leaving out the fact that Gupta knew better than to say the things he did, by all evidence. That goes to motive and integrity. So does lying about his connections to a right wing think tank.

I am not angry. That would tend to discredit my opinion though, wouldn't it?

Clever to accuse me of wanting a push poll. It is what the dust up says about the motivations and integrity of Gupta that are a major concern for people. For others, perhaps it is not. But you don't ask that question, and you construct your poll in such a way that precludes anyone expressing that.

You obviously intended this poll to be seen as a referendum on Gupta - I am, or I am not concerned about Gupta. But you didn't ask that. You asked I am or I am not concerned about the "dust up."

I am not concerned about the dust up, but I am concerned about the implications of the content of the dust up in regards to the integrity of Gupta. I think that is true for most if not all critics of Gupta. You cleverly set this up to preclude that opinion from being expressed or registered.

"leaving out the fact that Gupta knew better than to say the things he did, by all evidence."

Why would Gupta purposefully make a decimal point error when his point still stands even correcting for the error?

Nothing to do with the decimal point.

It's a decimal point error.

It is not the "dust up" that is of major concern for people.

The back story is not merely two instances of Gupta being wrong.

I would have no concerns about a "dust up," nor would I hold it against the nominee that he made two mistakes. But that is the only option you give me.

My "major concern" is that Gupta may well have been intentionally and knowingly lying, for the purpose of deceptively advancing an orchestrated right wing agenda, and hiding that connection and motivation - again, knowingly and dishoneatly. That is not contained within the "dust up" and goes far beyond merely a disagreement about two factual points.

I get the feeling that people think Gupta is going to be making policy, instead of selling the policy he's been given to sell.

Gupta is a GREAT shill. That's the reason for picking him.

The Obama admin doesn't see that as cause for concern.

The Obama admin wants to implement universal health care.

That concerns me.

Obama has always been in favor of universal coverage, not single-payer healthcare. That may be problematic for you (and for many others, including myself) but it is a problem that has existed for well over a year by now.

"Gupta was caught misrepresenting facts".




Is Obama willing to lie about single payer to make sure the Insurance Companies keep making money off of sick and dying children? Is that the deal? A SG who is a known liar, and who accuses others of being liars while he lies. Great pick. A bully. Another bully.

Because Obama is a corporate lacky? We'll find out.

I pray not.

Single-payer healthcare would constitute the biggest government reform since the New Deal, and would require not only a major tax increase, but thousands of pages of administrative changes to bicker and argue over. It could (and probably would) get bogged down in literally years of debate, accusation, and recrimination. An attempt to implement a single-payer system would effectively spend all of Obama's political capital on one roll of the dice, and Obama has shown himself to be somewhat averse to taking unnecessary risks. When he goes to the casino, he's a poker player, not a craps player, and he has that same mentality in politics.

Personally, I think that single-payer healthcare is by far the most important issue in America today, to the extent where not rolling those dice is borderline irresponsible. Still, I think the reasons he isn't doing it have more to do with calculating risk than with being a "corporate lackey."

tearing down his efforts at universal healthcare on CNN every night.

this could be a brilliant move if we think of this appointment that way.

then again, maybe that isn't Obama's intention and the appointment is exactly as it seems:
the private health insurance industry getting precisely what it wants and consumers getting the shaft.

Either way, I wouldn't trust him as a doctor, and if he can't be trusted as a doctor, how the fuck can he be trusted as Surgeon General?

we're talking about a wide-release movie dedicated entirely to educating people about the sorry state of our inefficient and exclusionary health-care system. He may be a bit of a lunkhead from time to time (such as his full-throated Nader support in 2000), but Sicko was a brilliant movie that helped move the national discussion of health care in the right direction.

Moreover, Moore was largely in the right in this fracas. Gupta was not outright incorrect in most of his assertions (Gupta's "lies" are minor, possibly accidental, and certainly incidental to the main point), but most of Gupta's assertions were simply alternate (and no more valid) conclusions drawn from the same data Moore used, or petty complaints as to potential holes in which Moore could have maybe manipulated data. I think Gupta was right to bring up what he did, but saying outright that Moore "fudged his facts" was not appropriate.

nuff said.

anything but a lunkhead. Those that oppose universal health care, without the rationing and profits of the insurance industry, now those are lunkheads.

:eyes:

that's it, he didn't attack Michael Moore, in fact Michael acted erratic and overly offended. Sanjay was nothing but civil and admitted the errors he thought he might has made..

Either you are being intellectually dishonest (a fancy way of calling you a liar), or you have not seen that segment you refer to. Which may explain why Gupta is you kind of guy.

I no longer believe Gupta is an independent thinker. He's a shill for big Pharma and Insurance.

a master debater, indeed.

Here's Moore's debunking of Gupta:

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

And has no honest rebuttal of his arguments.

Gupta and CNN made claims that Moore fudged the numbers. Moore proved he did not.

It goes to Gupta's character and integrity, as well as his ties to special interests that are contrary to the wellbeing of the American people.

If you want a doctor of anykind who lies and makes up information to bolster his case, you are insane. Gupta is a proven liar and shill. Your poll is a set up, written with bad intention. People who shill without regard to fact can not be trusted.

I'm not happy with Gupta at all and once again Obama has forgotten his base.

It looks like millions were spent trying to convince folks there was a difference between Clinton and Obama when there was not. Same personnel=same policies.

This is the first time I've been disappointed by Obama.

wing liers, not someone who works to cast doubt on Health Care reform advocates (like the RW does).

But that, even as television reporter, he clearly just spouts off what other people tell him (i.e not having the personal knowledge to correct the "fact-checking" error--the real error is that Gupta clearly didn't compile his own facts).

Considering it's Gupta's time on CNN that is being touted as his so-called "experience", that he clearly didn't spend his CNN time actually researching the issues is a major concern. We don't need any "atta boy" moments in the Obama administration. This incident cast doubt over both Gupta's ethics and experience, it would be wise to move on to a more competent candidate.

We watched the Moore-Gupta thing, including the "showdown" on Larry King (and, as I recall, it was heavily weighted with Gupta's ramblings while Moore was fact-fact-fact). I throw Gupta into the "lying liars" club. In this household, we're concerned (was dinner topic tonight).

Maybe Obama is hoping for that same blind allegiance when Gupta tries to sell his healthcare plan to the public.

but I decided that "votes and discussion" was more accurate.

He went out of his way, seemed to me, and it was based on nothing substantive. It was a headline and line of argument with nothing to back it up.

IIrc, Gupta was using an older set of stats for some of the claims, while Moore's were more up to date. "You said it's this, but the number is really THAT," claimed Gupta, working for a "gotcha."

The fact remains that the GIST of Sicko is not only correct, it is critically important. For Gupta to ride right over a call for adequate healthcare with claims it's full of lies, backed by supercilious and faulty nit-picking of stats -- insignificant to the larger truths even if they HAD been true -- speaks volumes about him.

There is no excuse.

If he busts his ass for Obama as much as he did for CNN, the country will be in good shape.

Yes, Michael Moore was right. Most DUers know this. But Gupta wasn't speaking for himself, he was speaking for CNN.

...is the way some factions of the extreme left is attempting to hijack the progressive movement for their own petty and selfish agendas.

One of their tenets is the belief some people are practically saints and cannot be questioned. Moore is no saint. He is hardly perfect. If you feel no one should question him then you're no different than the neocons we just go rid of (mostly).