Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
CNN vs. Michael Moore: Round ?
CNN took another shot at establishing its credibility in its battle with Michael Moore with a set of detailed responses to issues that Moore raised about its coverage. I will skip a blow by blow assessment, and just address two of the key points that were raised.
1) CNN sought to question Moore's credibility by charging that he was wrong in saying that U.S. health care expenditures are $7,000 per person compared to Cuba's $251 per person. CNN claimed that U.S. expenditures are just $6,000 per person, while somehow getting a figure (aknowledged as an error) that Cuba spends $25 per person. Moore has supported his number with projections from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that per person spending for 2006 was $7,000 and $7,500 for 2007.
CNN claims that they were being straight and that Moore is guilty of comparing apples and oranges because he has different sources and is comparing projections for the U.S. with actual data for Cuba.
Actually, CNN's response is rather scary since it suggests that CNN has no one familiar with social science research on their staff. It is common to use data from different sources, when data from the same source is unavailable. If there is reason to believe that there are important differences between the methodology used by the different sources, then this should be noted.
In this case, there do not appear to be any important differences in methodologies, only the year for which the estimate/projection is made. The data for Cuba is from United Nations Development Report. It is for 2003. It shows U.S. spending in that year at $5,711 per person. This is very close to the $5,952 figure shown by CMS for 2003, which suggests that there are no important differences in methodology between the two series. (The UN probably gets its data for the U.S. from CMS.)
The main reason for the difference between the $5,711 figure from 2003 and the $7,000 figure for 2006 and the $7,500 figure for 2007 is due to the year, not the methodology. It is perfectly understandable that Moore would want to use the most recent year for his movie -- highlighting the fact that health care costs in the U.S. are exploding -- and projections from CMS are generally viewed as being fairly reliable.
Moore can be faulted for not pointing out, if not in the movie at least in the subsequent debate, that the data for Cuba are four years out of date. It is almost certainly the case that costs in Cuba have also risen in this period. However, since Cuba is not experiencing a similar explosion in health care costs (at least not that I have heard), the increase in costs over this period was almost certainly much less. If we assume a figure of a 4 percent annual increase in costs, then the figures for 2007 would look something like U.S. $7,500, Cuba $294.
Point--Moore
2) In a subsequent Moore-Gupta exchange on the Larry King show, Dr. Gupta said that Medicare is going bankrupt. Moore pointed out that, according to CMS, per person health care costs are actually growing much more rapidly in the private health care system than in Medicare. CNN stands by Dr. Gupta, pointing out that Moore does not dispute the fact that funding for the program is not assured beyond 2019.
As I said in a previous post, it is not clear what Dr. Gupta could mean by his assertion that Medicare is going bankrupt, except to inaccurately imply that there is a problem with the Medicare program that is distinct from the rising costs of the U.S. health care system.
While CNN is correct in saying that funding for a portion of Medicare (Part A) is not assured under current law beyond 2019, funding for most government programs is not even assured beyond the current fiscal year. Yet, CNN's analysts have probably never asserted that the Defense Department or the Justice Department face bankruptcy because their funding for next year is not assured.
It is understandable that a partisan in the debate to privatize Medicare would claim that the program faces bankruptcy. It is difficult to see why an ostensibly neutral news outlet would make this claim, since it conveys no information to viewers.
Point -- Moore
--Dean Baker
COMMENTS (15)
CNN is owned by the drug companies. Observe how many drug commercials that are aired daily.
There is no debate. We have the worse healthcare in the modern world. Debate over.
Posted by: JB | July 15, 2007 7:15 PM
As an Ex Patriot Canadian, I really feel that CNN has done it's best to undermine and discredit Michael Moore's attempt to clearly indentify the problems with the US health care system. Saying he "fudged" the data was all the evidence one needs to know that they were not being honest with themselves or the rest of the public they are expected to serve.
Posted by: vperry | July 15, 2007 7:31 PM
It seems to me that CNN is just trying to pull the slightest differences from the movie just for something to say. Cubans live to 77.2 and we live to 77.9? Really are we seriously arguing over that little of a difference? My God if you only put this much effort into finding something wrong with the Iraq 9/11 connection maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. This is absurd!!!
Posted by: Stacey Smith | July 15, 2007 7:52 PM
I'm glad I'm not the only disturbed by CNN's response to "The Truth." If Gupta is truly concerned about health care in the US, why attack the credibility of someone who has done much more than he to bring these issues to the forefront?
Posted by: BHembree | July 15, 2007 8:08 PM
In regards to CNN trying to point out it's reporting is accurate, for the most part this is a stupid discussion. He says, He say...
The one thing that bothers me is that the CNN response in point 6 states "One of Gupta's overall critiques of the film is that Moore leaves viewers with an impression, as he does on his Web site, that universal health care comes without cost." After seeing Gupta's report, it seems to me that Gupta is doing exactly the same thing. He makes implications throughout his piece that Moore is wrong without actually saying it, thereby leaving himself open to say, there is no disagreeing with certain facts. Isn't that what modern journalism is all about. Implicate something without actually saying it. Seems that way to me for most of the news programming these days. Maybe CNN doesn't have the staff to do proper fact checking...see Lou Dobbs show where the claim of 7,000 leprosy cases in the U.S. in 3 years, whereas it was actually 30 years!
Maybe Sanjay Gupta can do more to solve the crisis than argue with someone who is actually doing something. Maybe it has something to do with his paycheck. I mean, what do Dr's get paid these days compared to other professions. Probably in line with, or higher than Lawyers, and we all know how people feel about them.
Posted by: JW | July 15, 2007 8:59 PM
" It is common to use data from different sources, when data from the same source is unavailable. If there is reason to believe that there are important differences between the methodology used by the different sources, then this should be noted.
In this case, there do not appear to be any important differences in methodologies, only the year for which the estimate/projection is made"
There is almost *always* a difference in methodology, which is why social scientists not thoroughly aware of differences should avoid using different sources.
Posted by: gladstone | July 16, 2007 6:59 AM
If only the statements of George W. Bush, his cabinet, and his press secretaries had been fact-checked with the same enthusiasm that CNN evidenced in trying to discredit Michael Moore.
Posted by: Virginia | July 16, 2007 11:02 AM
If only the statements of George W. Bush, his cabinet, and his press secretaries had been fact-checked with the same enthusiasm that CNN evidenced in trying to discredit Michael Moore.
Posted by: Virginia | July 16, 2007 11:02 AM
i see gladstone still hasn't learned anything, such as the difference between saying there do not appear to be any "important" differences in methodologies not meaning that there are "no" differences between methodologies. and then dean gives us a useful proof.
but onto serious matters: we can all understand the general decline of news coverage into a subset of the entertainment industry, but this kind of effort by CNN does point to something deeper and more significant: how the media serves as a gatekeeper for what is and is not acceptable discourse.
Posted by: howard | July 16, 2007 11:04 AM
howard
if only it were only "a subset of the entertainment industry."
no. these guys win elections and govern based on misleading the public.
until we can find a way tell the people we are going to keep being the victims of this "entertainment."
Posted by: coberly | July 16, 2007 11:42 AM
I went back to see Sicko again, in part to see how the impression it left on first viewing would hold up. If anything, seeing the film again, watching the people's faces, hearing their stories, is even harder to bear.
I haven't seen too much of the pushback arranged by the vested interests, but I have watched the Gupta and Blitzer and Moore exchanges. I think it's interesting how these media personalities attempt to make Moore into a 'showman', a poseur, implying that he's the one who is using the medium to enhance or create his own persona. The attack on Moore's facts is amusing because it seems to me to show just how frightened these attackers are of ever acknowledging the real people and real lives Moore built his film around.
Re Moore's and Blitzer's exchange. Did anyone else find Jack Cafferty's remark to Wolf about how "they don't pay you enough" to put up with Michael Moore quite remarkable? Here's a man whose trademark is being a contrarian -- of course he never actually confronts the person or persons he's ridiculing or dismissing -- and no doubt he's very well paid, but he's all sympathy for Wolf Blitzer having to actually hear Michael Moore tell him that the media did not serve the country well in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Somehow, I feel confident that Wolf is receiving much much more money than any of the folks who are dead as a result of that invasion, don't you?? I think he's getting paid far more than enough.
Posted by: Aunt Deb | July 16, 2007 12:02 PM
CNN is acting a lot like Bill O'Reilly these days. Have the CNN folks figured out that folks tune into CNN to avoid the whiney garbage that comes from Faux News. Oh well, we still have MSNBC (oh wait Russert is over there).
Posted by: pgl | July 16, 2007 3:12 PM
".... and then dean gives us a useful proof."
Except Dean has spun and mislead so often on this blog I simply don't trust his call.
Maybe he is correct and Moore can select from different sources, but we don't know that.
Posted by: gladstone | July 16, 2007 3:36 PM
It wasn't implied... IT IS ACCEPTED.
This place we live in... IT IS ACCEPTED. We aren't Michael Moore. You are about to run into a buzzsaw of reality that makes the 1972 election seem pleasant.
Dude, I'm supportive of atleast some of your goals. But you are soooo milque-toast.
DEAL with the reality. THIS COUNTRY IS FULL OF COWBOYS. Regular working guys who totally get the deal and simply choose NOT to participate in a system that raises up Milque Toast.
Something about their long range thinking reminds them, that you are the kind of guy who becomes more important if we follow your ideas - and dude, that SMELLS WRONG. It really smells.
If you want to sell your idea, remember you are part of it yourself, and you aren't persuasive to the masses for a reason.
It's either the message or the messenger - and if your message is sooooo great - then dude, it must be you.
Yeeeez.
Posted by: Morgan | July 17, 2007 10:55 AM
I read a little about the exchanges on Moore's website. He demands and apology from CNN. I agree with JB that CNN is going to spin the news to suit the drug companies. But it's deeper than just one industry. The class that owns so much of the wealth in this county is interested in preserving the status quo. Michael Moore is not only challenging that but he does so in a very popular fashion. Millions are going to learn more about why healthcare in America is such a mess. They are going to learn that their experiences are SHARED by millions of others. Furthermore, Moore presents evidence that contradicts the mass media promoted belief that although American healthcare is all messed up, it's the best there is! Nonsense, says Moore! Here's France! Here's Canada! Here's England! Here's ( oh no, not a Communist country!) Cuba! CNN's objective is not to actually win the argument against the facts but to just plant that seed of doubt that other mass media outlets can then toss around until, eventually the movie itself is discredited. Mass disinformation.
Posted by: Jim Hannley | July 19, 2007 5:06 PM