After AS is willing to very nearly or completely libel Michael Moore as follows:
Moore is both a practiced liar and not-too-smart. -AS
He goes on to conclude that CNN deserves respect for its assertion that they are "impartial":
The fight is ongoing. My respect for CNN increases. -AS
Not surprisingly, the media mavens don't agree, with CNN's factcheckers hardly looking impartial (and protestations that the factcheckers were vetted looking pretty ... vain, frankly).
The producers of CNN's piece created a problem when they pitched the piece as a "fact check", and emphasized "fudged facts" in their summary / conclusions, (see point 8) despite finding none defensible.
The producers of CNN's piece created a problem when they pitched the piece as a "fact check", and emphasized "fudged facts" in their summary / conclusions, (see point 8) despite finding none defensible.Is it any wonder that Micheal Moore got brushed the wrong way?
Michael might be "wrong" about what to do about health care (I don't think so, in general), but Michael is not wrong "on the facts".
I don't think this is a fault of Gupta, necessarily - he's pretty good. They just cobbled together a piece, probably under deadline, and didn't realize just how much fudging the line on fact-checking vs. their own opinionating would get Moore, who paid to have his movie fact-checked, all upset.
CNN's written piece was somewhat better than the original hype for the "Stay tuned, is Michael Moore's new film, Sicko, accurate? We do a fact check."
CNN didn't present a traditional fact check. They picked up on an item or two - one of which they later retracted - and used those to suggest that the facts ought to have been weighed differently or other facts included (some that they suggested, like taxes, were included in Sicko!).
CNN and Gupta, are, of course, welcome to their opinion on how to weigh the facts, but not to call doing so a "fact check".
