MICHAEL MOORE v. CNN, ALL DONE
Moore calls truce on beef between he and CNN. This statement from the Moore camp is pretty spot-on:
CNN’s report attempted to challenge ‘SiCKO’ by arguing the film only used facts that backed up the movie’s thesis. In fact CNN, by creating confusion over the acceptability of using different reports and research, along with using a biased expert whose background was not identified, engaged in the very tactics it was attempting to accuse ‘SiCKO’ of using.
Of course, the glaring difference is that ‘SiCKO’ is a self-admitted opinion piece, whereas CNN is trying — in between the various ads for Cialis — to hide beneath the fig leaf of being an unbiased, neutral news reporting agency.
The true downfall of Gupta’s piece refuting SiCKO wasn’t the confrontational tone, the health industry-associated expert, or their oppositional facts, it was the self-professed notion that Gupta’s piece was the “objective truth” somehow above Moore’s opinion-based film. Neither piece can, or should, exist without the other, and both pieces “suffer” from the editorializing of information sources, as editorializing is the only way to tell a story.
No news report, documentary film, or non-fiction book can ever even hope to present “the whole story,” something which can only be collected over time through a variety of sources, of varying degrees of bias coming from a number of angles.
Good for Moore, good for CNN.
Trackback URI | Comments RSS |