"Sicko" Angers Big Media & Corporate America

"Sicko" Angers Big Media & Corporate America

First, read "Attacks on Sicko make me sick."

http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2007/07/attacks-on-sicko-make-me-sick.html

Then, more details.

USA Today's blasting of Michael Moore's new documentary "Sicko" is now a familiar pattern. The publication's criticism is biased against Moore and his review of the U.S. health care system, where profit comes first, and people... well, they never show up.

According to U.N., the U.S. health care ranks 37th in the world. Obviously, health care industries and their pet media wouldn't like people in America and beyond hear about it. USA? 37th? In health care? "No way!"

Recently, CNN's health care commentator Dr. Sanjay Gupta also did a negative critique of "Sicko," along the USA Today line. Dr. Gupta did not like the fact that common people can get much better (and cheaper) health care in a "God-forsaken" country such as Cuba, and that 9/11 workers got better and a much more humane treatment in Castro's U.S.-maligned communist system. Just like USA Today, the CNN story also did not interview anyone other than Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans. What an outrageous imbalance!

We all know that U.S. media is controlled by multinational corporations and Wall Street. It's, therefore, no surprise that big-media talking heads would not be able to say things radically different from their employers' POV. But, in my opinion, we expect a bit more conscientious, soul-searching overview of U.S. health care, a system that is outrageously profit-oriented and grossly inhumane, as Moore has shown. How can we forget the story of the woman who lost her husband ONLY because the insurance company wouldn't approve his treatment that was very likely to save him? How can we forget that because of the $500,000 save (i.e., profit) the insurance executive made on him, she admitted later that she got promoted by the company? Moore told us so many horror stories from U.S. (and so many comfort stories from other countries such as Britain, France and Canada) that a minimally conscientious person would stand up and do something about it, NOW.

CNN and other mainstream media (and their spokespersons) are therefore busy destroying Moore and hushing up the dirty secrets about this "best-in-the-world", "God-fearing" country. Problem is, the cat is already out of the bag, big time!

"Sicko" has exposed the health-care scandal in the best possible, popular way, obviously angering the U.S. govt. and its trustee corporations and big media.

I'm sure we'll talk more about it in the coming days. By the way, Google has taken a strongly negative take on "Sicko." Why Google? Go, figure out. It's not so hard to do it, after all.

Yours truly,

Partha Banerjee

http://www.geocities.com/chokmoki
___________

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
www.fair.org

USA Today's 'Sicko' Debate
Is Michael Moore wrong...or very wrong?

6/29/07

On June 28, USA Today's editorial page offered a "debate" on Michael
Moore's new film Sicko. But the paper "balanced" its own take
critical of Moore with a piece written by a representative of the
private health insurance industry.

Under the title "Today's Debate: Healthcare," readers saw the paper's
view under the headline "Flawed 'Sicko' Sparks Debate." The paper
wrote that Sicko "plays on emotions with anecdotes, stories and facts
that aren't always in context, up-to-date or accurate. So it has to
be taken for what it is: a provocateur's exposé of the worst of the
American system, coupled with an uncritical, even naive, review of
his preferred alternative."

The paper went on to argue:

"Is a single-payer, government-run system the answer? That's what
Moore is pitching. Sicko applies rose-colored camera lenses to
healthcare in Canada, Britain, France and Cuba. None of these,
particularly Cuba, is as idyllic as portrayed. All require higher
taxes to finance and are beset by inefficiencies."

While acknowledging that the U.S. healthcare system had problems, USA
Today concluded by declaring that "Sicko doesn't have the answer."

The piece that followed--labeled "Opposing View"--could only be
considered the other side of a "debate" in the sense that it was more
critical of Moore. This was not a surprise, considering the author:
Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans.
Her argument against Moore echoed USA Today's in some key
aspects: "Moore wants a government takeover," she wrote, and his
film "relies on one-sided anecdotes." Ignagni also wrote that "Moore
advocates a total government takeover of healthcare, sugarcoating
what that would inevitably mean--including rationed care, long waits
for care, underpaid doctors and delayed adoption of new technologies."

So USA Today's "debate" on healthcare policy went something like
this: Michael Moore's film is misleading, inaccurate and naive, and
his solution for healthcare problems is wrong; on the "other" side,
Moore's work is one-sided and his solution would make healthcare in
the United States much worse.

This restricted range of debate would seem to be in line with the
paper's reporting on Moore's film. On June 22, USA Today's Richard
Wolf wrote that "Sicko uses omission, exaggeration and cinematic
sleight of hand to make its points. In criticizing politicians,
insurers and drug makers, it says little about the high quality of
U.S. care. In lauding Canada, Great Britain, France and Cuba, it
largely avoids mention of the long lines and high taxes that
accompany most government-run systems." The article closed with
Ignagni complaining that the industry's perspective was not included
in the film.

What's missing from USA Today's coverage, meanwhile, is a real sense
of how poorly U.S. healthcare fares compared with other countries.
While the editorial noted that the United States spends "more than
any other country" to achieve lackluster results in terms of
longevity, it doesn't point out that the U.S. spends twice as much or
more on healthcare per capita as the countries that the paper
calls "beset by inefficiencies." As for "higher taxes," a real
rebuttal to USA Today's position might have noted that the U.S.
government spends about as much on healthcare as a share of GDP as
the Canadian, British and Cuban governments do, and France's
government spends only somewhat more--even as the U.S.'s private
spending on health dwarfs that of any developed country.

In its editorial, USA Today signaled a hope that Sicko "can stir a
serious debate about the nation's ailing healthcare system." That
sounds like a great idea--so why didn't the paper have one in its own
pages?

ACTION: Contact USA Today and ask them why their June 28
healthcare "debate" over Michael Moore's Sicko was so unbalanced.

CONTACT:

USA Today

Brent Jones, Reader Editor
accuracy@usatoday.com
1-800-872-7073

###