Michael Moore speaks his mind on live TV

Look at the package they ran before Moore was on. You can kind of understand what pissed him off. He's going to fact check CNN's "reality check" on his website tonight.

The nitpicking was incredibly petty and minor but the tone was very gotcha, and completely slanted. I mean, "reality check"? They're bending over backward to discredit the movie. And in the film, when it shows our placement on the list, you can clearly see Cuba right there. He's not hiding it.

The thing is: has CNN ever reported on the things he reports on in his film, albeit through the lens of his own personal feelings and experience? When they're doing this report on SiCKO, do they bother looking into any of the points he brings up in the film? Do they actually, God forbid, do any investigative reporting into the stranglehold of the insurers and drug companies? Seriously. There's nothing I loathe more than facile TV "reportage" with pretensions of real news.

And why didn't Wolf address any of the points he brought up about Walter Reid, about CNN's slavish devotion to the official line in the run-up to Iraq? The news networks are obscene. The only bastion of actual reporting on TV is Bill Moyers.

ps. people hate on Michael Moore for the very reason that his movies are actually seen, unlike all the incredibly great, ultra-serious, non-"entertaining" docus that get made each year. I have nothing but admiration for him.

There's a difference between having a differing opinion on the topic and going on a treasure hunt for weaknesses to attack, editing them together into a produced piece which then becomes the lead-in to your interview. Let's assume someone watching Wolf Blitzer has not seen SiCKO. I've got an idea: how about bring him on and then ask him face-to-face about these questions Gupta brings up in his hit piece. Or, if you're going to go that route, why not have Gupta on to ask Michael Moore the questions? Why cherry pick miniscule issues and edit them into a package and then bring him on with 10 minutes to react. This is a documentary about an open sore in American life, yet that package put Moore immediately on the defensive because it's essentially saying -- "yet again Michael Moore is lying to you, so just ignore the elephant in the room of private health care, concentrate on these flaws instead."

I think Moore was hitting back at the whole CNN debacle, and Gupta's complicity in the whitewash the corporate-owned media and administration were spoon-feeding the public. Wolf kept throwing Gupta's credentials at Moore and Moore was basically saying, "it's irrelevant. do your job as a newsman."

The media makes it impossible. Seriously. Politeness gets you nowhere in the corporate news environment. They frame the narrative to benefit their business allies in government and industry, not to communicate to the general public a truthful picture of the world. This won't be the last hit piece on SiCKO or Moore. Why not lash out at them? That's what makes him Michael Moore.

Those people will dismiss his message regardless of how he reacts. I know a lot of people who tell me they don't "like" Moore for all the usual reasons. But he has to be himself, and I totally respect and admire that. Name another documentary filmmaker who has had the kind of impact he has had. So many great, amazing documentaries go ignored. They're regarded as "spinach," not "meat and potatoes." Michael Moore is an entertaining guy. He makes entertaining movies that are about important things. Whether you agree with his style or tactics or personal expression is for each person to decide, but you can't deny that he's got your attention.

ps. Michael Moore has "reality checked" Gupta's hit piece here.

Here's Moore's response to the Cuba thing:

You know, it's fine to have a critical opinion on this movie. It's a movie, like any other movie, at the end of the day, and each one of us is going to have a different reaction, just like I loathe American Beauty and a lot of other people love it.

ElCapitan is right in that the Cuba factoid is a total diversion from the overall point of the film. And if Michael Moore's on-camera behavior turns off too many people then someone else from the civilian ranks will have to come forward and make a movie that might get people's attention, and then get a chance to go on CNN and talk calmly and on-message about it. Until that time comes, I thank God that there's someone like Michael Moore doing the kind of rabble rousing he does. If people can't see beyond their distaste at how he "comes off," that's too bad for them and for us.

And to Goldberg's point, if people are so short-sighted that they can't use their own critical thinking skills to decide for themselves what makes sense and what doesn't, then you could make the argument that we deserve to be gang-raped by the insurers and drug companies. I don't know what you want from him. When was the last time someone spoke the truth about Iraq on TV like he did, or the truth about the healthcare system on TV? When was the last time anyone upset the cat's cradle that the corporate-owned media has so successfully spun in obsequious deference to their corporate and political pals?

But my point is two-fold in response to that:

1) people who will dismiss his movie by saying "He made it look like Canada's healthcare is perfect when Canada's system is far from perfect" are just looking for a way to ignore the broader message. It's that way with all of his movies. As I said earlier in the thread, he takes creative license with his subjects and makes bold, entertaining movies that are too successful to ignore and entertaining enough to get the attention of more people than an excellent documentary like "Iraq for Sale," which roughly 2 people saw.

2) When you say shooting himself in the foot, I don't know that he sees it that way. Unless I'm mistaken, no one in this forum has been in his position or done any of the things he has done -- like make these movies, interview these people, go on CNN, take on the right wing noise machine, etc. So, what you might interpret as shooting himself in the foot, he is probably very conscious and mindful of. Just because he doesn't approach a subject the way you or I would doesn't mean he's wrong.

No, clearly everyone not only has a right to have and express an opinion but to think he's a buffoon or whatever else. And Martin Savage's point is well taken, but I disagree. I think a lot of people get on Michael Moore's case for "giving the right easy-to-dismiss hyperbole" or whatever -- I just don't think Michael Moore is doing it by accident and I don't think he's necessarily wrong in taking this approach. My point about us not being in his shoes is to say that we can cluck our tongues and say he made a fool of himself on CNN, but he's been well-served by being himself all these years. And he's pretty media savvy. It's all about getting people to see SiCKO.

Interviewing people and stating facts about the Canadian healthcare system is not lying, first of all. Yeah, a line about the flaws in the system would have saved him some grief, but this is the movie he made. For all the hate spilled on him, no one has ever shown his facts to be wrong. He's not lying. My thinking is that he approaches making a movie the way any other filmmaker does -- he's telling a story the way he's creatively driven to tell it. It's why a lot of people go to his movies and are entertained by them.

One thing I must completely and thoroughly take issue with though is equating Michael Moore with the people in charge of this country and corporate entities like Fox News and their reichian footsoldiers on the frontlines. Michael Moore is an individual filmmaker -- he wasn't elected, he doesn't have agreements no one's allowed to know about with corporate sponsors, he doesn't have shareholders who can anonymously support bottom-line sociopathy -- he is an individual. As an artist, he has a responsibility to be true to his muse. Yeah, there's an added level of life-or-death import in what he chooses to make his films about, but you cannot compare that to an elected leader lying or obfuscating or framing to carry out an agenda of such destruction and depravity.

So, yeah, I'm not saying your points aren't valid, just providing you with my take on why he does it the way he does it. It's not like he's the only person in the universe capable of making movies that expose the greedy scumbags preying on the ignorance of the US masses. Anyone with a camera can do it. I think in our frustration people look to Moore to be our voice, and therefore want him to represent us in a way we'd like to be represented. But he's really just a filmmaker, making films his way. Look, he clearly inspired Morgan Spurlock. Maybe there are other filmmakers out there who will add their voices to the national consciousness, then then onus won't be so much on him and him alone to speak truth to power.

It's not a shame. I think healthy debate is the best thing for any of us.

Fair enough criticism.

This is a huge, vast stretch. Do you think Hannity does what he does for any reason other than the money? Do you think that if he didn't have the corporate encouragement, approval and protection of Big Fox and the Vice President's official seal of approval he would put on the kind of show he does? Do you think for a minute that he would have the kind of passion, perspective, organization and storytelling acumen to make a documentary on his own, not just narrate some facile scripted piece of propaganda? You can't compare Hannity to Michael Moore. In fact, you can't compare anyone on the right or within the establishment to Michael Moore. So, while I see the kind of point you're trying to make, it's apples and %$#&^% oranges.

It does, and as I said, I see the point you're making and not saying you're wrong, just that I disagree with you. I think I explained myself best a few posts up.

ps. I also want to make the point that anything you don't see and experience with your own five senses is going to be subjective and fictionalized to a degree. There is no such thing as a lack of bias in written and/or filmed media. A point of view is present in all journalism or filmmaking. There are no empirical facts or truths. We all see the world through our own eyes and no single individual or entity has a corner on the truth.

Here is the less explosive part two of Wolf's interview.

... but would it be the issue at hand if he never made the movie?