Michael Moore Blasts Wolf Blitzer...It's GREAT!!!

[Brassmask]

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Michael_Moore_shames_CNN_Blitzer_on_0709.html

Before a live interview with documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, CNN aired a segment entitled "Sicko Reality Check" in which Dr. Sanjay Gupta, the network's chief medical correspondent, aimed to keep Moore "honest" and fact check his new film, Sicko.

Video is awesome...!

[BT]

Classic deflection.

Trash the messenger.

Make it about the war.

[Universe Prince]

Moore went for the classic liberal nut defense when one's credibility is questioned: accuse the questioner of being paid by corporations. Moore is pathetic.

[Brassmask]

Classic deflection.

Trash the messenger.

Make it about the war.

Actually, Moore made it about what EVERYTHING is about with CNN:  MONEY.  Truth, honor, reality, integrity, etc go right out the window if the bottom line is threatened.  Big Pharma advertises drugs 24-7 on CNN and during EVERY news broadcast.  Those people know it and they will protect their benefactors so that those benefactors can continue to peddle ED drugs.

The owners of the big media outlets also own lots of war toy making companies, so do you think that the news outlets are going to going along with whatever war plans are being pushed?  OF COURSE THEY ARE!!  Or they'll be out trying to get the Bumfuck Gazette to let them edit their community events page.

[Brassmask]

Moore went for the classic liberal nut defense when one's credibility is questioned: accuse the questioner of being paid by corporations. Moore is pathetic.

They are paid by corporations. 

[BT]

So is Moore.

[Brassmask]

So is Moore.

Which?

[Universe Prince]

They are paid by corporations.

No way! Really? Wow. Golly gee, I never knew. You've really opened my eyes... Okay, maybe that is a little too much sarcasm.

Yeah, of course they are. So? That doesn't inherently invalidate whatever objections were raised by Dr. Sanjay Gupta. But that is the whole point of the "paid by corporations" defense. So-and-so is paid by corporations so you can't trust what they say. Moore either can't or won't respond to the questioning of his credibility on the air, so he verbally points an accusing finger by saying "That report was so biased, I can't imagine what pharmaceutical company's ads are coming up right after our break here," and questioning the credibility of CNN.  It's a classic deflection defense. It's weak, and it's obvious.

[Brassmask]

Blitzer and Gupta know who butters their bread.  And their editors and produces ESPECIALLY know.  They're going to direct Blitzer to do what's in the interest of their bottom line and if he doesn't do that (by attacking Moore's film and calling the facts into question), then they'll just find someone else who WILL do it and he can go work for A Current Affair or something.

Do you deny this is the reality?

CNN is out to make a profit regardless of the reality or facts, am I right or not?  The insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, doctors, etc are out to make a profit no matter what the patient's customer's issue or situation is, am I right or not?

If they are not out to make a profit, then they, as corporations are breaking the law.  So, if they can deny a claim and make a profit then they will start off by first and foremost DENYING every claim (I"ll even be nice about it) above a certain amount.

I would bet that one of CNN's largest advertisers is the drug companies.  Wouldn't possibly impact the bottom line if they were to start lambasting on the drug companies?  Yes or no?  Yes or no?

There's no some unseen wall that blocks out profit pursuit at the edge of Wolf's set.  He knows what's what.  He knows that he's got to get that seed of doubt planted about Moore's film in every viewer's mind or it could put one of their biggest advertising bloc's out of business and that could impact CNN's bottom line!!!

So, they get Gupta (war hero!!) to make some fudgery insinuations in a hit piece and that's that.  Moore called them on it.  The End.

Hitting the post button now.

[BT]

So is Moore.

Which?

The Weinstein Company. Formerly Miramax, I believe.

[Universe Prince]

Blitzer and Gupta know who butters their bread.  And their editors and produces ESPECIALLY know.  They're going to direct Blitzer to do what's in the interest of their bottom line and if he doesn't do that (by attacking Moore's film and calling the facts into question), then they'll just find someone else who WILL do it and he can go work for A Current Affair or something.

Do you deny this is the reality?

Yes I do. And I defy you to prove to me that your scenario is reality.

CNN is out to make a profit regardless of the reality or facts, am I right or not?  The insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, doctors, etc are out to make a profit no matter what the patient's customer's issue or situation is, am I right or not?

Not.

If they are not out to make a profit, then they, as corporations are breaking the law.

What law?

So, if they can deny a claim and make a profit then they will start off by first and foremost DENYING every claim (I"ll even be nice about it) above a certain amount.

And your evidence is soon to follow, right? I'll just (not) hold my breath as I wait...

I would bet that one of CNN's largest advertisers is the drug companies.  Wouldn't possibly impact the bottom line if they were to start lambasting on the drug companies?  Yes or no?  Yes or no?

Since I don't have a list of CNN advertisers here, I don't know. And since I don't have evidence of CNN losing advertisers over reports or criticisms made on air, I don't know about that either. And I suspect, neither do you.

There's no some unseen wall that blocks out profit pursuit at the edge of Wolf's set.  He knows what's what.  He knows that he's got to get that seed of doubt planted about Moore's film in every viewer's mind or it could put one of their biggest advertising bloc's out of business and that could impact CNN's bottom line!!!

And now you're a telepath who has been snooping around Wolf Blitzer's mind? Nonsense. You don't have a clue what the decision making process was.

So, they get Gupta (war hero!!) to make some fudgery insinuations in a hit piece and that's that.  Moore called them on it.

Not having seen what Gupta said, I don't know what sort of insinuations he might have made or not made. But I love seeing you trying to smear him for having the audacity to question Michael Moore. And Moore didn't call them on what they actually said. Like you, Moore objected to them daring to question his film and his credibility. As I said before, Moore is pathetic.

[Brassmask]

Who writes your responses?  Alberto Gonzales?

BT must be envious of your technicality and hair-splitting.

[BT]

I am more envious of your ability to ignore IP points completely.

How do you do that.

Nevermind, you learned by watching Michael Moore.

[Universe Prince]

Who writes your responses?  Alberto Gonzales?

In other words, you don't have any evidence or a reasoned argument to support your position.

BT must be envious of your technicality and hair-splitting.

Technicality? What, you mean like the fact that you don't know the first thing about what sort of decision making goes on at CNN? I don't know if Moore is the leader or just a saint in your cult, but I recommend that you stay away from the kool-aid.

[BT]

Freedom and Benevolence Go Together
By John Stossel

I interviewed Michael Moore recently for an upcoming "20/20" special on health care. It's refreshing to interview a leftist who proudly admits he's a leftist. He told me that government should provide "food care" as well as health care and that big government would work if only the right people were in charge.

Moore added, "I watch your show and I know where you are coming from. ... "

He knows I defend limited government, so he tried to explain why I was wrong. He began in a revealing way:

"I gotta believe that, even though I know you're very much for the individual determining his own destiny, you also have a heart."

Notice his smuggled premise in the words "even though." In Moore's mind, someone who favors individual freedom doesn't care about his fellow human beings. If I have a heart, it's in spite of my belief in freedom and autonomy for everyone.

Doesn't it stand to reason that someone who wants everyone to be free of tyranny does so partly because he cares about others? Wishing freedom to one's fellow human beings strikes me as a sign of benevolence. But Moore and the left don't see it that way.

Moore thinks respecting others' freedom means refusing to help the less fortunate. But where's the connection? All it means is that the libertarian refuses to sanction the use of physical force (which is what government is) to help others. Peaceful methods -- like voluntary charity -- are the only morally consistent methods. I give about a quarter of my income to charities because I've seen that private charity helps the needy far better than government does.

Moore followed up with a religious lesson. "What the nuns told me is true: We will be judged by how we treat the least among us. And that in order to be accepted into heaven, we're gonna be asked a series of questions. When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was homeless, did you give me shelter? And when I was sick, did you take care of me?"

I'm not a theologian, but I do know that when people are ordered by the government to be charitable, it's not virtuous; it's compelled. Why would anyone get into heaven because he pays taxes under threat of imprisonment? Moral action is freely chosen action.

If Moore's goal is to help the less fortunate, he should preach voluntary charity instead of government action.

Surprisingly, he did show an understanding of the importance of the libertarian philosophy to America. "John, your way of thinking actually was great for this country. I mean it; it helped to found the country. It helped build us into one of the greatest nations, perhaps the greatest nation, that the earth has ever seen. Limited government, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, every man for himself, forward movement, pioneer spirit. That's why a lot of people in these other countries really admire us, because there's this American get up and go."

I interrupt here to point out another smuggled premise. Did you catch that "every man for himself" line? America was never about every man for himself. A free society is about voluntary communities cooperating through the division of labor. Libertarianism is far from "every man for himself."

After acknowledging that limited government helped make America great, Moore went on to say, "But I don't think that what you believe is what's going to allow us to survive."

He means that if government does not assure people health care and food, our society will disintegrate.

But why would a philosophy that was good enough to build a successful society be unsuited to sustaining that society? Individual freedom, with minimal government, made it possible for masses of people to cooperate for mutual advantage. As a result, society could be rich and peaceful. As the great economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, "What makes friendly relations between human beings possible is the higher productivity of the division of labor. . . . A preeminent common interest, the preservation and further intensification of social cooperation, becomes paramount and obliterates all essential collisions."

Freedom and benevolence go hand in hand.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/freedom_and_benevolence_go_tog.html