But Michael Moore is Fat, So It All Evens Out
by matt at 8:15 am on July 10th, 2007 in Health Care, MediaHey Sanjay: If you’re going to fact check, at least get it right:
CNN decided to have its health care expert, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, go after Michael Moore’s new movie Sicko. One of the facts that he claimed the movie got wrong was its assertion that health care spending in the United States is $7,000 per person. Dr. Gupta said it was only $6,000.
Well, this is an easy one. We go to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services National Health Care Expenditure projections and find on Table 1, line 3, that projected per capita health care expenditure for 2007 is $7,498.
Along with Michael Moore, BTP eagerly awaits the apology for getting such a simple fact completely wrong. (Actually, they should make a double apology, since the point was to show that Moore was sloppy with his numbers. What exactly does CNN’s health care expert get paid for if he can’t read a simple table before presenting his stories to the country?)
Inexcusable. How many organizations have now tried to punch holes in this film only to come up short?
sarabeth wrote:
Matt, honestly! Weren’t you paying any attention at all when you watched the damn thing?
What part of this didn’t you understand:
The voice of Sanjay Gupta on medical matters may not be quite as authoritative as that of the burning bush, but it’s clearly the next best thing.
Seriously, though, CNN can’t help being CNN. Still, you have to admire Blitzer’s willingness to let Moore say his piece yesterday, and to let him say it again today (uncut and unedited).
And I think he will tender today exactly the kind of apology that is called for under the circumstances. In short, I don’t think he’ll be pulling a Lou Dobbs.
Posted 10 Jul 2007 at 9:10 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
BTW, Dr. Gupta’s number was $6,096.
I had assumed he just picked the wrong year. But if you click on the projections link Dean Baker provides, this doesn’t match up to any year.
It’s possible that Dr. G used a different source, with slightly different numbers. However, in Dean Baker’s source, the last time the number was in that ballpark was 2003.
This seems to call for a “WTF?”
Posted 10 Jul 2007 at 9:20 am ¶
matt wrote:
why? ratings are ratings.
Posted 10 Jul 2007 at 9:29 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
how many people in the news business would take a slap in the face like that, ratings or no ratings?
let’s wait and see what the apology looks like? a sincere, honest apology versus a Dobbs-ism has nothing to do with ratings?
Posted 10 Jul 2007 at 9:34 am ¶
tom wrote:
i bet it would draw crazy ratings if blitzer would just let me beat the hell out of him with a baseball bat on his show, but somehow i dont see my limousine pulling up out front just yet.
Posted 10 Jul 2007 at 1:33 pm ¶