Ignore Andrew Sullivan’s oh-so-sophisticated analysis of this charged political exchange, but I think Michael Moore v. CNN & Sanjay Gupta provides some good insight not just into the current state of the American health care system but into conflicting states of American journalism as well:

On one level the exchange is a bit petty; both Moore and Gupta use facts from reliable sources, facts that, at times, somewhat disagree. The result is a quibbling back and forth that amounts to little more than “HHS is better…nooo, WHO, WHO!”, an impassioned dispute which may sound somewhat familiar to Billy Madison fans.

The most jarring point of distinction, however, is less over numbers and more over methodology and news-philosophy, as best illustrated by this comment from Dr. Gupta:

“[T]o just say to someone who doesnt have a sophisticated understanding of how health care works that its free is just not true.”

Who doesn’t recognize that “free” health care means tax-payer funded? Does Dr. Gupta really think we’re all that dense? (Moore himself actually raises the taxes issue directly in the film, going so far as to point out that France is “drowning in taxes.”)

This brings out my biggest beef with the most common criticism leveled against Michael Moore, the notion that the people who see his films aren’t adult enough to form their own understandings of the issues he presents without falling completely under the sway of his entrancing/brain-washing arguments.

Moore’s movies don’t exist in a vacuum and that’s why they work. As Gupta acknowledges, without SiCKO the current American discussion on the ongoing health care crisis wouldn’t be nearly as robust as it is right now. In-depth discussion and analysis has been popping up in local press, online magazines, and even on MTV (bringing truth to the youth, Ruth!). If anyone out there is basing their entire views on the health care industry solely on what they see in a Michael Moore movie then they’re clearly not getting the whole story. Taken as a part of a healthy media diet, however, SiCKO does a world of good.

The mainstream press insists on on-the-spot “objectivity” out of a condescending belief that the American people are incapable of fully informing themselves by seeking out a multitude of opposing viewpoints. MSM corespondents even go out of their way to deny their own convictions (a clearly impossible task) for the supposed good of the American discussion, a very pre-blog mindset that I’m hoping will soon dissipate.

This became abundantly clear in an awkward way earlier on CNN, where Moore went head-to-head with Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room, remarking right at the close of the interview “And thank you, Wolf, for saying during the break that you liked my film” to which Blitzer awkwardly replied (almost apologetically) “I thought it was a powerful movie.” Saying something is “powerful” is a lot different than saying you “liked it”, a distinction Blitzer had to cling to for fear of coming across as “biased” toward Moore (which he clearly is, to some extent) by acknowledging on-air he thought he made a good movie.

Opinion journalism of the Moore-come-blogs variety does away with this annoying condescension by laying its balls right out on the table. Lou Dobbs is patently wrong on essentially every position he has ever held on any issue, from outsourcing to immigration, but I much prefer his “bias at the outset” form on news analysis and insight to the Wolf Blitzer “I’m Not Allowed to Say I Liked a Movie” kind.

Moore is in the same exact vein. To point out that Michael Moore editorializes the facts in order to support a central argument is really nothing more than to point out he is a prominent pundit with a political position. This is what the best in opinion journalism does, and it’s very much why Moore’s films are so successful, influential, and, yes, effective.