"Why don't you for once tell America the truth?" Michael Moore asks of Dr. Sanjay Gupta

[Bluebear]

...It started earlier this week, when CNN's Wolf Blitzer, who hosts the hour-long show Situation Room, turned the spotlight on Sicko, the recently-released Michael Moore documentary that takes a harsh, uncompromising look at America's healthcare industry.

In what an increasingly agitated blogosphere calls an attempt by Blitzer to sandbag the filmmaker, the host opened the segment with a previous prepared piece in which Dr Gupta used certain facts and figures to demolish the film.

Moore was introduced immediately after the segment; clearly enraged by the segment, he rubbished Dr Gupta's arguments, criticised CNN for airing what he called a premeditated hatchet job, and segued into a scathing indictment of the channel and of Blitzer himself.

'Why don't you for once tell America the truth?' Moore demanded at one point. He said, further, that he would post point by point refutations of Dr Gupta's criticisms on his web site.

A day later, the promised refutation was up, and it was extremely detailed; it ended with a demand that CNN apologise for suggesting that Moore had fudged his facts.

Two days later, Dr Gupta and Moore squared off again -- this time, on Larry King Live. Reports suggest that Moore's staff had, prior to the live interaction, provided Dr Gupta with detailed facts, figures and sources substantiating all the points made in the movie, and that Dr Gupta went ahead and trashed those figures anyway, with little or no basis....

http://www.rediff.com/movies/2007/jul/11gupta.htm

[cui bono]

1. This is old... curious as to why you're posting it now.

:shrug:

[Greyhound]

2. This is my guess. Just a reminder of what he is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4777289&mesg_id=4777289

[truedelphi]

4. Gupta is being appointed to the position of Surgeon General

He'll be the official Mark for Merck!!

[Skittles]

5. HELLO!!!

Obama just selected that tool bastard

[K Gardner]

8. Ran out of things to post about Rick Warren? Just a guess.

[Bluebear]

14. Rude as usual.

No, you're not snide, it's everybody else.

[madfloridian]

24. Well, I haven't run out of things to post. How rude.

What is wrong with DU that you will sell out a whole group of Democrats so easily?????

Now we have an anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-civil union party chairman who loves right to work laws.

[tsuki]

36. THIS. nt

[TexasObserver]

13. See if you can figure out why anyone would be talking about Gupta right now.

Is it really that hard to figure out?

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. Because the apologists are out in force.

Gupta didn't "make a mistake". He and his corporate owners deliberately attempted to libel Moore.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zbdent]

7. Moore had more class than Gupta ...

Gupta/CNN didn't provide a warning before ambushing Moore ...

[Jamastiene]

9. All courtesy of Oprah

I hope he does not pick Dr. Phil for anything.

[Two Americas]

10. thanks Bluebear

This time people started posting "I don't know why people are freaking out about this appointment" before anyone had criticized it yet. Preemptive ridiculing, abusing and taunting of dissidents is the game, I guess.

Now you're told that this is old news, and questioned as to why in the world you would be posting it.

There is no way to explain the performance of Gupta when he attacked Moore without acknowledging that he clearly has an agenda - a very right wing agenda.

Anyone attacking Sicko is not merely moderate, since Moore is not being criticized like that - especially a lying hatchet job like Gupta's - by any but the most extreme right wingers and shills for industry. Back at the time, Gupta was a hero to every right wing commentator.

[Bluebear]

15. It's OK, it's the usual suspects who are dismissing it.

[Two Americas]

16. here is how I see it

If a person from a right wing think tank who goes on the MSM and does a lying hatchet job on Moore is not disqualified, then no one is. If that can be defended, anything can.

[Bluebear]

17. 'If that can be defended, anything can.' - And is. nt

[Elidor]

18. That's a very astute point

I can only surmise that the True Believers ran their offense onto the field a little early because they knew just how truly bad this stinks.

And although Obama's previous appointments are all of course perfectly receptive passive vehicles for executing his wishes, from here on out you must remember that these later picks don't really count for anything anyway: that's right, they're just for show! Nice frame they build. And no rational discussion can even begin until that frame is laboriously hacked away.

Further, Obama is in a state of metamorphosis, and this transformation leaves him temporarily unable to communicate with the outside world (except on economic matters). When his pupal stage ends on January 20, he will emerge fully-formed, a creature with new voice. There will be several hundred fewer Palestinians in the world by then, but that's okay, because he's probably not going to stand up for them then, either.

I'd love to be wrong about that, but I don't think I will be.

Gupta is indeed a minor buffoon in this drama, but he's part of a larger pattern that gives me flashbacks to the 90's.

[Two Americas]

20. right

If the appointments are all for show, and don't matter because "Obama will be controlling them and is the one making policy" - (is this one man rule, or a representative democracy and a government of shared and limited powers?) - then what is he trying to show us? Can't we criticize the show?

If we question this as a show - the symbolism, the message - we get the pragmatism arguments. If we criticize the apparent move toward pragmatic centrism, we get the show argument.


.

[Elidor]

21. That really nails it

And so many people try to 'win' arguments with just that tactic: shift the dynamic. Argue in circles.

[Bluebear]

23. Well said as usual

[kristopher]

31. The presidency isn't a representative democracy

It is an executive agency, with Obama as the chief executive. IS Gupta a shill? Yes. But now he is Obama's shill and, in my opinion, he is the best shill for a position that requires a shill.


define: shill -

# a decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

# A person paid to endorse a product favourably, while pretending to be impartial; An accomplice at a confidence trick during an auction or gambling ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shill

[Two Americas]

35. dishonest is dishonest

There is no such thing as a shill that is on our side. We are opposed to shills, and all that the concept implies. That is the essence of the political Left. There is no such thing as a bully that is on our side.

The right wing is the political organization for shills and bullies. There is no "ideology" or "philosophy" there. If "we" are going to be bullies and shills, then we have not merely become like the enemy, we are the enemy.

I have suspected for a while that the Democratic party is becoming merely one of two aristocratic and authoritarian factions of the "haves," shilling and bullying the people for the sake of retaining power, wealth and privilege. The difference between the two faction s, who combined represent about 10% of the people, is mostly a matter of style. Your post supports that idea.

I did not say that "the presidency is a representative democracy," whatever that sentence might mean.

Say hello to the new bullies and shills; same as the old bullies and shills.

[kristopher]

37. What a crock

The fact is that the opponents of health care reform are going to conduct a massive public relations campaign to convince (scare?) the public into opposing changes we need. I therefore see Gupta as an excellent pick as a voice to cut through the noise and keep the reform effort on track. You see, there is nothing written that says a 'shill' has to be dispensing false or misleading information. That you consider that goal and Gupta as a spokesperson to be equivalent to the right wing slime machine tells me you really have nothing to say worth listening to. All you want to do, obviously, is bitch.

You wrote: "If the appointments are all for show, and don't matter because "Obama will be controlling them and is the one making policy" - (is this one man rule, or a representative democracy and a government of shared and limited powers?)". In this remark you are clearly conflating the presidency with the nation as a whole. The discussions center around Obama as chief executive, so if you *aren't* conflating the decision-making process of the presidency with the decision-making process of the national polity, then you need to clarify.


And BTW who elected you to speak for and define "our side"? Open and transparent government isn't the same as naive and gullible government.

[Fumesucker]

38. How much confidence does a man inspire whose whole message changes 180 degrees in a moment?

That is the problem with Gupta, his shtick is shilling for corporations, he can't be perceived as an honest interlocutor for any other position.

Gupta was actually stupid enough to use Micheal Moore's own line about France was drowning in taxes against Moore live on Larry King, Moore called him on it and Gupta would not acknowledge his pwn3ge although his microexpression said "I just got screwed".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR2U_SAWHdQ

At 7:30 Gupta says France is "drowning in taxes" and implies Moore didn't mention high French taxes in the film Sicko.

At 7:50 Michael says "that's my line".

[kristopher]

39. You're making a mountain out of a molehill

You are generalizing from YOUR perception of Gupta to make baseless claims regarding how he will be perceived by the rest of the nation. While what happened with Sicko was distasteful, it is hardly the defining moment for Gupta's image that you (and others) are making it into. For most of those who were offended by it are going to support health care reform with or without Gupta. The people who are most likely to oppose reform are, if they are aware of it at all, most likely to trust Gupta more for making Moore an outsider.

I'm a fan of Moore, but what Gupta did was the job his employers tasked him with. I expect he will do the same for Obama. Who knows, in a sense it could be said that Gupta owes Moore a debt for the ethics in the attack on Sicko, and maybe, just maybe, Moore can use that debt to finagle some inside access to highlight people and groups that are trying to subvert the reform effort.

[Fumesucker]

40. So dishonesty doesn't matter?

A hatchet job is a hatchet job, Gupta was dishonest once and will be so in the future.

[Two Americas]

41. such confusion

You say that "there is nothing written that says a 'shill' has to be dispensing false or misleading information."

From the definitions you provided -

"a decoy..."

"...who pretends..."

"...while pretending to be impartial..."

Now I am wondering how a person can appear to be something they are not for the purpose of deceiving people without lying.

You are the one who claims to be defining and speaking for our side. You are not speaking for me.

[Two Americas]

44. to answer your other question

You wrote "the discussions center around Obama as chief executive, so if you *aren't* conflating the decision-making process of the presidency with the decision-making process of the national polity, then you need to clarify."

I said we have a government of limited and shared powers, therefore the idea people are promoting here that Obama as an executive will be able to muscle people into compliance with his agenda is misguided at best.

I said we have a representative democracy, therefore the idea people are promoting here that we should be silent and passive and trust in the wisdom and intelligence of politicians is also misguided at best.

Yes, I certainly do think that there is, or should be a strong connection between "the decision-making process of the presidency" and "the decision-making process of the national polity." What would be the alternative to that?

[TexasObserver]

11. Moore is right, and Gupta is a tool of corporate medicine.

[The_Casual_Observer]

12. Gupta is a glad handing "feel good" self promoter.

[lonestarnot]

19. Gupta is a dirt-bag who will always fall on the side of big pharma corporate shill.

And he has teeth as big as a wolf and that smile reminds me that he is a wolf. :thumbsdown:

[EFerrari]

22. He's an entertainer and I guess this may turn out to be where reality teevee

goes to die, the new administration.

[bertman]

25. Thanks for the post, Bluebear.

[flyarm]

26. ahhh geeee..Dr.Phil must have had a previous engagement!!

why is anyone here surprised??????? this just mirrors the previous White House sitter....it's all about patterns with these people..appointing a vet to head up womens health care...how soon we forget eh??...now we have the entertainment tonight doctor Gupta..the infamous yes man to the networks and pharm corps..you think you have od'ed on Viagra and ciallis commericals??..next time you drive your kid to soccer practice you are going to see a big billboard with a perpetual hard on and a smiling Gupta .....and a big VIAGRA printed under with a smiling Gupta and those white pearly teeth..Change ..be careful what you wish for....and who here didn't see the similarities??

sure am glad i didn't drink the cool aide!

[Usrename]

28. Gupta is a dishonest criminal and a tool of big pharma.

He's the worst kind of person, definitely NOT the public service type.

[SoCalDem]

29. He is said to be "thinking" about it.. he may decide not to take the offer

Money Money Money Money Money may be more important to him in the end:evilgrin:

and then maybe Obama can come up with a doctor who is NOT in the pocket of BigMedia/Big-Rx..

[Cleita]

33. Let's hope his millions made in the private sector will win out in his greedy

little mind over serving his country. I hope so.

[SoCalDem]

34. He's not yet 40, and he does have his young family to consider

A wife who's used to having a decent income coming in, might not be eager to sign on to 4 years of a small income.

Between CNN & Time & all the special appearances he makes, I'm pretty sure he makes a LOT of money

[Baby Snooks]

30. But, but, but....

He is Obama's choice. We must support him. Gupata belongs at the table. The table of unity. The table of inclusion. The table of people who have bought or blackmailed their way to the table. Or had their way bought or blackmailed to the table. I am sick of the table. And I am sick of people defending the table. And most of all I am sick of Barack Obama. His table is not the table of the American people.

[Cleita]

32. And this is our new Surgeon General.

Between him and Daschle, you can kiss any meaningful healthcare goodby. The well off will be able to buys theirs and everyone else will have to settle for what crumbs Medicaid offers or nothing. The only other chance is to get Conyer's bill HR676 passed in the house and a Senate version through the Senate with a veto proof majority (I don't have much hope) so whatever, Obama, Daschle and Gupta want will be irrelevant.

[deaniac21]

42. Why couldn't he have picked

[Horse with no Name]

43. I'm just curious how wonderful the fucking Koolaid tastes these days. n/t