Any political essay requires an accuracy check, especially one presented in the style of Michael Moore. So CNN runs a "Reality Check" piece to counter the film SiCKO and they can't even quote the film properly.

[link|http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3135|http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3135]

The piece--dubbed a "Reality Check" by senior medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta--claimed that Moore "fudged the facts" [hyperlink not shown here] when critiquing the U.S. health care system ([hyperlink not shown here]). Gupta starts by acknowledging that the U.S. healthcare system placed 37th in the World Health Organization's rankings. The fact that Moore contrasts this with the Cuban system led Gupta to "catch" him: "But hold on. That WHO list puts Cuba's healthcare system even lower than the United States, coming in at number 39."

The fact that the U.S.'s healthcare system does about as well as a Third World island that's been under economic sanctions for the past five decades isn't much of a catch to begin with. But Cuba's WHO ranking actually appears in Moore's film. (As Moore's website pointed out [hyperlink not shown here], when CNN aired the relevant clip from his film, a CNN logo covered up Cuba on the list.)

The article reveals other misquotes of the film. How can a respected news organisation fail to check against the film they're analysing?

When Moore confronted CNN's Blitzer about the inaccuracies in their "reality check" segment, he responded: "Well, if we get that confirmed, obviously, we'll correct the record." And CNN did correct one thing\ufffdGupta acknowledged his error about Cuba's per capita spending ($25 versus $251). On CNN's Newsroom (7/10/07), Gupta seemed taken aback by the whole thing, saying, "Yesterday there was a lot said by Michael, quite frankly, lots of numbers thrown around, and it can get admittedly somewhat confusing."

A doctor cannot handle lots of numbers being thrown around? Did this person not study for a degree? Shouldn't he be laughed at for such a pathetic excuse?


Finding bias, cherry picking and factual inaccuracies in a Moore film can't be that difficult. How did people who can't even quote from their source properly get into journalism?