I see that Dio already posted what I was about to.
But just to reiterate what he said: Cite for Moore “making a bunch of mistakes”? And no, blind hatred of the guy is not a valid cite.
Seems to me that if MM is such a bald faced liar, examples should lie thick upon the ground, like a Tony Snow press conference, you could pick one up blindfolded.
So, bring, already.
I never said Moore lied, and neither did CNN. That’s not his MO. He cherry picks data in order to exaggerate his case. Sound familiar?
You said he “made mistakes.” Cherry-picking data (something I’m not willing to grant that he did just because CNN doesn’t like his cites), is not a “mistake.” It’s intentional, by definition. And if CNN can’t show that his data was erroneous, then their whole piece comes across as carping.
Dude, I put “mistakes” in quotes. That means they weren’t really mistakes, especially since he refuses to correct them. That’s the difference between someone trying to report a story (CNN) and someone trying to push an agenda (Moore). There is nothing wrong with pushing an agenda, except when you refuse to admit that is what you’re doing. Happens in this forum all the time.
I get that it’s SUPPOSED to be satirical, but maybe it’s my sense of humor…I don’t get it. Even satire is supposed to make a point, and if his point is supposed to be, as you say, that even an oppressive dicatorship shows arguably more compassion than insurance companies do, then as far as I’m concerned, he doesn’t make the point very successfully…because he had to set it up.
Well, sorry, John, but that is just silly to the nth degree. If you yourself admit that they weren’t mistakes WTF would MM “correct” them?
Have you seen it? If you haven’t seen it, how do you know you wouldn’t get it?
In what way was it a set up? I keep hearing people say this like it’s a proven fact but I haven’t seen anyone produce any evidence for it.
What is the evidence that what’s portrayed in the movie is not an accurate representation of how a random citizen would be treated in Cuba?
I have not seen it, but I have heard plenty, including descriptions here on the SDMB, from people who loved the movie.
My evidence is that I know people in Cuba, and this is not an accurate representation of how they receive medical treatement. I don’t expect you to believe it based on that, but I personally find it hard to believe that MM is right, and my relatives are wrong, considering that they live there.
Uhm, let’s see… because they were deliberate distortions? It’s a simple matter of saying: *Yeah, I picked projected data from 2007 for the US and past data from 2005 from country X. My bad. * Especially since if he had used data from the same years, he still could have made the same point.
If you haven’t seen it then you’re not in a position to evaluate the tone and spirit, period.
So your post is your cite?
What exactly happened to the people in the movie which would not happen to your relatives?
What if I were to tell you that some Cuban immigrants have told me that what’s shown in the film is more or less accurate?
How was the data “distorted?” If all the data is accurate then what difference does it make?
OK.
What can I say to that? I know what I hear, first hand, from people I know. I would love for you to be able to talk to them, but I don’t think it’s practical.
That they walked into a hospital and got medical care.
Then I guess the moral to that story is that even in Cuba, not everyone is treated equally.
John, can you refute any of these facts made by MM in “Sicko”?
Wish you luck because your Knight In Shinning Armour, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, surely couldn’t. What he could do – and actually did extremely well – was to come off as a ( corrupt and paid for) speaker for the all-powerful pharmaceutical companies.
ETA: And yes, I have most certainly seen the film and was both enthralled and repulsed by it. Great film-making by any measure – 'cept, and rather obviously, the right wing’s.
By not using data from the same time period. If I tell you that the Britain spends more on defense than the US and I use data from 1930 for the US and 2005 for Britain, you’re OK with that? The data is accurate, afterall. Or is it only OK as long as the conclusion is not affected-- ie, I can use data from 1995 for the US and 2005 for Britain as long I conclude from that the US spends more than Britain. Problem is, I leave you with a distorted impression of exactly what that difference is.
But if you can’t see a problem with that, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I can’t think of anything else I can say on that subject.
Do you have a cite that Moore made comparisons of the type you suggest here? Which years did he use, and what was the comparison he made?
…now hold on. Didn’t I post earlier in the thread the problems with the CNN cite? Didn’t I examine all 11 rebuttals and show how dubious they were? Don’t you agree that the original CNN piece by Dr Gupta contained all the hall marks of the things you disagreed with: agenda driven reporting, omission of facts, and mis-representing of statistics?
When you chose not to respond to my post, I took that as a concession. But as I see you continue to view the CNN response as valid: I need to ask the following questions:
Did you actually read the CNN response? Did you follow the arguements and read the citations?
Of the 11 specific refutations offered by CNN, which ones do you think show “deliberate distortions” by Moore?
Did you consider the original CNN “fact check” to be better or worse than Sicko in terms of accuracy?
Did the original CNN “fact check” prove Moore wrong, or back up the conclusions of Sicko?
You seem to be fixated on Moore’s use of two statistics from two different sources, but I haven’t seen you once attempt to rebutt Moores reason (listed in the CNN rebuttal) for doing so. Instead, you simply imply this was a deliberate distortion. You haven’t provided any evidence that the use of these statistics were a deliberate attempt to distort the facts. You have ignored the poor quality of the original CNN story and the lameness of the rebuttal. Is this the only problem that you can find with the movie that you admit you haven’t and won’t see?
I can see that specific example quite clearly, John. But it has jack -shit to do with the “Sikco” vs “CNN distortion” you’re attempting to create.
Beyond Banquet Bear’s detailed, point by point response (and my own cites and others’), what have you got? Other than handwaving of course.
Not gonna work in GD, John, and you’re well aware of that fact. So I don’t quite get where you’re coming from – from fence-sitting to “fuck the uninsured working poor that MM brings to the forefront” there’s quite a stretch.
No wonder I can’t never figure you out. Law of the Jungle? Is that what you’re ultimately for?