This Unscrupulous Creep As Surgeon General?
Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2009-01-07 11:16.
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
- Spotlight this page




















www.VelvetRevolution.us
i remember this ...
forgot lou dobbs ... gawd i'm glad i don't watch tee vee anymore ... michael moore has been, and remains, the man.
"michael moore has been, and remains, the man."
He lost me when he backed Obummer instead of using his name behind Dennis Kucinich who stands for everything Moore "claims" to believe in.
REAL "CHANGE"? http://www.dsausa.org/about/index.html
Critiquing "Sicko" does not make Sanjay Gupta unscrupulous
Unscrupulous? I don't think that is fair, at least not based on this clip. Gupta just disagrees with Moore concerning certain claims made in the film. I was waiting for some charge of conflict of interest, say, Sanjay Gupta being on the payroll of Aetna or Pfizer or something (which, as far as I know, he's not). As far as I can tell, Gupta just pointed out a few possible inaccuracies in "Sicko", defended Moore against some of the claims being made against the film, and agreed with Moore that the U.S. system needs a lot of work. On Moore's web site, he states that Gupta falsely quotes the film as claiming that Cuba spends $25 per person on health care, which, if true, is the worst thing Gupta did. I'd still want to double check by watching the film again to find out whether anything was said about $25 that Gupta or one of his staffers could have misconstrued or possibly intentionally distorted.
I remember seeing this CNN interview live, and thought that MM came off as completely defensive and ungracious, doing himself much more damage than any right wing caricature could have. He spent almost the entire time raging against CNN about their criticisms of "Fahrenheit 9-11", and about the fact that much of what Moore predicted in the film, which CNN dismissed, turns out to have been true. This was not the appropriate venue for that. And when Blitzer offered to give him extra time to discuss "Sicko" on tape (possibly because Moore wasted all the time they gave him in this interview fulminating about a different film altogether), Moore rejected his offer quite rudely and sarcastically.
"Sicko", by the way, is a great film. What Gupta comments on are minor points, and nothing he says in this segment undermines Moore's basic premise. If anything, the kind of measured critique that Gupta presented is an example of legitimate debate, as opposed to the Sean Hannity school of disingenuous demagoguery, like what he said the other day, "SOME SAY that the controversy surrounding Bill Richardson and Rod Blagojevich have already tainted the incoming Obama administration." THAT is completely irresponsible and unscrupulous, taking cynical advantage of the fact that, for better or worse, a gullible and ignorant person's vote counts just as much in this country as anyone else's.
Sanjay Gupta lied through his teeth...
... several times on the air, live, to discredit the cause of Single Payer Health care. and I for one, have had enough of the liars in DC getting away with selling us out to big business.
It was proven he lied, repeatedly...
proven. CNN had to apologize. But Gupta went on to continue being the healthcare business's shill on TV. And getting paid well for it.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/obama-picks-another-clintonis...
moore has
documented numerous lies on his website
Not just moores site, which I reccomend, but also...
Media Matters did a great article or two on the subject. They really went after Gupta.
I got a new pic up on my site comparing his headshot with Shatner, Hasselhoff and others. it's funny
Still not convinced that Gupta is evil or even a creep.
True, Michael Moore pointed out some things that he found to be inaccurate in the CNN report, and Gupta apologized for the biggest blunder, which was his misquoting Moore in the film as saying that Cuba spends $25 per person on health care, when the figure Moore had cited was actually $251. Gupta said it was due to a transcription error, which is not impossible to believe, but which was certainly irresponsible and destructive for CNN to have allowed to air in a major story like that. But Gupta also made some legitimate criticisms of Moore's reporting in a follow up interview on Larry King. I actually agree with Gupta that, if indeed Moore got the $251 from a particular BBC report, then it was irresponsible for him turn around and consult a different source, which would have based its statistics on different variables, to come up with his contrasting figure of $7000 for U.S. spending. I agree with Gupta that when citing statistics you have to compare apples to apples and not use a report for one statistic that you like and then reject another number from within the same table in the report that says something different from what you'd like it to say. I felt the same way that Larry King did when he asked Moore why he was so mad at Gupta, since his criticisms seemed so insignificant compared to the ways in which he agreed with him. Now, if CNN hyped it saying "Sanjay Gupta Smacks down Sicko," I have a problem with that. I also think that it was unconscionable for CNN to ignore the email Moore sent to Gupta producer Chris Gajilan correcting the errors in the story, thereby allowing Anderson Cooper to run it unedited the very next night without addressing any of the corrections Moore brought up in the email.
I would like to know more about Sanjay Gupta and in particular, whether there's any reason to think that he would be going into the Obama administration with the intention of blocking universal health care coverage. So far, nothing in the video posted on this web site or in the Larry King debate with Moore leads me to believe that he has such an agenda. What Moore and Gupta agree on is that it's unacceptable to have thousands of people in this country going without health care because they can't pay for it. They may not agree on the means to provide care for everyone, but if Obama is what he is presenting himself to be, maybe he will have both Moore and Gupta working on this to find out a way to provide health care for all and also avoid some of the problems that may exist in other countries that already have universal health care. I wouldn't want to silence either of these intelligent men without first considering what they have to say. Hopefully Obama has the ability to listen to contrasting views and then make up his own mind about the best course to follow. At least, judging from his rhetoric, be believes that it is a good idea to be open to different opinions before setting policy.
It is worth seeing the Moore/Gupta debate on Larry King for an example of two well informed, articulate experts engaging in an intelligent debate on a vital issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR2U_SAWHdQ&feature=related
ยป
How about the fact that Gupta is owned by Big Pharma?
Does that sway you a little?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/7/104043/1871/240/681144
great Daily Kos investigation into Gupta, turns out bunches of crap...
Gupta? What the hell?
Missed this until now. Good link to dailykos, willy, but I've felt his reporting to be biased toward the corps long before reading this post and before his shameful interview with Moore. My bulls*** radar has been on alert with him for a long time. Obama advisors, if you are reading, find a doctor, not just one who plays one on TV. Yeah, I know he is one.
Hey Rain...
... yeah, I never liked the guy. He is totally cheesy.
check this out, my Cheese of the World pic...
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/obamas-pick-cheesy-sanjay-gup...
Have friends who are cheesy!
But I like your cheezy choices.
Think the cheese picks are...
... Gouda? :)
The Vioxx thing is disturbing
I happened upon the initial post having very little prior knowledge of Gupta outside of the few times I had seen his work on CNN over the years. One story that involved Gupta which I did see when it originally aired was this Blitzer interview with Michael Moore discussing Gupta's review of his film. I find this interview uncomfortable to watch even now, because I admire Moore a great deal and believe his reaction to Blitzer to have been ill-considered and damaging to his message.
All I was saying in my post was that to me, the only thing particular video shows is that Gupta challenged Michael Moore on a few of his statistics from "SICKO," which by itself does not prove that he is unscrupulous, but only that he has an opinion. I never meant to suggest that there might not be something in his past that would make him an inappropriate choice; my point was rather that I would prefer to see some specifics on his track record than a headline telling me that he's a creep, with the only evidence presented being this fight with Michael Moore. In the absence of any other details, it just seemed like I was supposed to just hate him because Michael Moore hates him. I heard a woman on Stephanie Miller's radio show today say, referring to an anti-Gupta op-ed by Paul Krugman, "If Paul Krugman says it, then it's good enough for me." I think Krugman is a smart guy, but it's time for us to stop taking our favorite pundit's word for it and do our own thinking.
Now, regarding Sanjay Gupta, I have since learned more, and there does seem to be a pattern of breezy inattention to detail in his work, which I do find troubling. The fact that he did not do an adequate job of fact-checking on the Moore piece and thus repeated an incorrect citation in the "Sicko" review is a bad sign, in particular since the review ended up airing again even after Gupta's staff was informed of the mistake. This, along with his failure to question pharmaceutical companies' assurances that Vioxx was safe, suggest that he can be sloppy when it comes to fulfilling his duty as a journalist to inform the public about serious policy and health issues. And if these two blunders were the result not just of laziness but of his being compromised by ties to big pharmaceutical companies, than to me, that definitely disqualifies him. But again, the mere fact that he works for CNN and is therefore "corporate" is not enough for me to conclude that he must be corrupt. I want some evidence - dates, names, etc. He should be subject to the same level of scrutiny that Bill Richardson was. I would rather have a Surgeon General who is less telegenic but instead fiercely committed to keeping people safe.