http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/56446/

I have always noticed that Michael Moore only receives one kind of
coverage from the mainstream media: the bad kind.

Every time one of his films comes out, the news fakers go on a quest
to "debunk" them. Why? Because one of the themes that has run
consistently throughout Moore's films is a contempt for the mainstream
media's laziness and complicit role they have many American atrocities
and problems.

He has, as he points out in this fantastic (and live) broadside
delivered to the archetypal cable news tool, Wolf Blitzer, been ahead
of the curve on Walter Reed, the War in Iraq, gun violence, and a host
of other issues and all these networks and talking heads can do is try
to pick apart his work to "expose" how he's somehow "fudged the
facts", always ignoring how incredibly right he has been and continues
to be about our American condition.

We all love to see Wolf Blitzer (who tirelessly defends CNN medical
"expert" Sanjay Gupta) taken down a peg, but the video is really about
the whole mainstream media getting called out on their bullshit, which
makes it so much more satisfying.

norman mailer-daemon wrote:

calcio1518@yahoo.com
smug bigots like Lou Dobbs act amused by what they consider Moore's
"act".
Little do they know, the joke's on them.

On Jul 9, 9:04 pm, norman mailer-daemon yahoo.com> wrote:

They debunk Moore's work because it's PROPAGANDA filled with lies,
half-truths, and blatant distortions. How else do you explain
Charlton Heston's tie changing colors 3 times in the same "speech"?
Answer: Because Moore used creative editing to rewrite what Heston
actually said.

And that's just one example of many.

Moore is not a documentarian. He's a propagandist: Lies, half-truths,
and distortions.

In article <1184074741.687942.300200@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
SFTVratings yahoo.com> wrote:

Re: VIDEO: In this CNN appearance, Michael Moore effectively defines the
ground rules in terms of credibility. And then he leverages that to
discredit CNN and support the claims he makes in "Sicko". Awesome.

SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com (SFTVratings) How do you explain Charlton
Heston's tie changing colors?

In article
news-east.newsfeeds.com>,
Brian Bernardini comcast.net> wrote:

Well, I know one outright lie in that movie. He claimed George Bush
ordered the Secret Service to protect the Saudi Embassy in Washington,
DC after 9-11. That's a flat-out lie. The Secret Service is obligated by
statute (passed by Congress) to protect *all* foreign missions and
embassies in Washington, DC. George Bush didn't order it and the USSS
was protecting the Saudi Embassy (and every other embassy) decades
before George Bush was ever elected president.

BTR1701 wrote:

Wasn't Moore's claim based on the "facts" offered by a Secret Service
employee in uniform? If you're implying that he had to fact check
everything, you're certainly implying a higher duty for him than for
GWBushleague.

On Jul 10, 9:39 am, SFTVratings yahoo.com> wrote:

Of course, and Moore gets terribly prickly when someone has the
temerity to question his messianic vision, or suggest that he's
someone who likes the spotlight more than he likes coming up with
solutions. Which is good, considering that of course he has no
solutions to the problems he likes to discuss.

That being said, I think it was a little inappropriate of CNN to run
that Gupta piece right before Moore came on. The piece itself was
fine, but I think it's unfair to run a rather lengthy piece which (in
part) calls into questions a lot of claims made by someone, and then
only give the person a few minutes to rebut what was said. To be
honest I don't doubt for a minute that "Sicko" has many, many
unsubstantiated claims and flat out lies - like Moore's other flims -
but if you're going to invite the guy on your show you could at least
ask them about them one by one and give him a chance to respond to
each rather than just play a tape. I feel a little odd defending
Michael Moore because I think he's a charlatan, but there you are.

In article <1184127870.893894.287920@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
yahoo.com> wrote:

If you were really being honest, you'd watch the film, take some notes,
and come back to us with your list of its "many, many unsubstantiated
claims and flat out lies."