Yet even after all this, amazingly, Michael Moore is scheduled to again appear on CNN today?
How?
Well, it appears, to put it simply - CNN finally Caved and Told The Truth!.
The mighty CNN, in a lengthy and sad online defense of their woe-begotten 'Sicko' story of last Monday, has admitted that they did indeed fudge at least two of the facts in their coverage of my film and have apologized for it:
- Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN: "To be clear, I got a number wrong in my original report, substituting the number 25, instead of 251." -- My Conversation with Michael Moore, July 11th, 2007; and
- CNN: "Moore is correct. Paul Keckley left Vanderbilt in late 2006." -- CNN's Response to Michael Moore, July 15th, 2007.
Furthermore, CNN confirmed that all of our statistics in "Sicko" are the correct numbers from the sources we cited. Although CNN still prefers to use older World Health Organization statistics, we will stick to using this year's Bush administration stats and more recent U.N. data. (In "Sicko," we consistently use only U.N. Human Development Statistics unless it's for studies they don't do or have recent numbers for.) CNN did apologize for these two factual errors, but no apology seems to be coming for the rest of their errors. These days, to get the mainstream media to admit they were wrong is rare; to get them to admit it twice, as they have with "Sicko," I guess should be considered a whopping victory. Will they eventually apologize for the rest, or for their reporting on the war? Will the Cubs win the World Series this year?
Somehow I'm not so sure about those Cubs.
But it has to be admitted that getting even these concessions from CNN have indeed been a victory. Just look at the how Judy Miller, still to this day refuses to take any responsibility for her shoddy reporting on WMDS, or how David Brooks is fawning over George W. Bush's "self-confidence and resolve" like a love-sick schoolgirl.
The one point which Michael has asserted from the very beginning is that the MSM has repeatedly failed in it's obligations to genuinely be objective and more importantly accurately inform the public.
If CNN had devoted even one-tenth as much of an effort to questioning whether WMD existed in Iraq prior to the Bush invasion as it has arguing about the facts in 'SiCKO,' the public would have been much better served. If CNN devoted more time discussing the central themes of 'SiCKO' instead of creating distractions, the public would have been much better served.
Amen.
Last night and this morning the Democrats have engaged in a all-night Filibuster Fight against Republicans (who not long ago threatened to implement the "The Nuclear Option" to eradicate filibusters) over the Iraq War. Just minutes ago the Cloture Vote for Levin/Reed Failed. Has CNN accurately covered this battle?
Just like the Cub's chances, I doubt it.
But with small forward steps such as this one with Moore, I don't think it's too much to entertain a bit of hope that if you make a big enough stink, you might see some progress.
Just a tad.
Vyan
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
