I present the following quote for your inspection:
Unfortunately, Moore is also a con man of a very brazen sort, and never more so than in this film. His cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews (with lingering close-ups of distraught people breaking down in tears) and blithe assertions (how does he know 18 million people will die this year because they have no health insurance?) are so stacked that you can feel his whole argument sliding sideways as the picture unspools.
Pause and reflect =)
This is from Kurt Loder's review of Sicko, front paged at Red State with the commentary
I'm not going to watch the film, but a review wouldn't hurt. I've been looking for an objective review, and I've found one in an unlikely place. [...]I don't have to see Moore's little drama to agree with the rest of the statement from Kurt Loder, MTV music news. He seems to be telling us that the movie is socialist propaganda of the sloppiest sort [...]Good riddance, Michael Moore, and good job, Kurt Loder
Let's imagine reading this segment of Loder's review from an actual objective standpoint. It contains a plethora of negative opinions and precisely one factual criticism, namely that Moore's claim of 18 million deaths due to lack of insurance is unsourced (note that Loder can't be bothered to track down a source himself). We as objective readers pause to evaluate the one factual criticism, and conduct some back of the envolope calculations. Approximately 300 million people in the US, figure a death rate of about 1% (it's actually 8.3/1000), that's 3 million deaths per year. Total.
Something is wrong. Did Moore actually claim the ridiculous 18 million number, or did Loder screw it up? As objective readers, we're curious and look around to find out. We find this factcheck of Sicko from CNN, a reasonably unbiased source, which concludes "We found that his numbers were mostly right, but his arguments could use a little more context." Hmm, do they address the specific claim? Turns out they do:
Moore opens his film by giving these statistics, "Fifty million uninsured Americans ... 18,000 people die because they are uninsured."For the most part, that's true. The latest numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say 43.6 million, or about 15 percent of Americans, were uninsured in 2006. For the past five years, the overall count has fluctuated between 41 million and 44 million people. According to the Institute of Medicine, 18,000 people do die each year mainly because they are less likely to receive screening and preventive care for chronic diseases.
Well, 18,000 makes a lot more sense, and as it turns out the claim is accurate (although 50 million looks like creative rounding). As it happens, a poster at Red State noticed the discrepancy and cited the CNN story -- and got rebuffed with "I don't know whether your assertion is accurate or if Loder is right, but you cannot say that the review is "loaded with inaccuracies," which would render the entire review dubious at best, by citing only one." Another merely questions the 18 million figure, and the general conclusion in the comments is that Moore blatantly exaggerated.
The conclusion I draw from this little drama is that when one goes looking for "objective" sources to back up a preconceived idea, one is unlikely to subject such sources to even the most cursory scrutiny. When one hears "evidence" that backs up an entrenched opinion, it is uncritically accepted. I could probably do a similar exercise on the left, it's not just a Red State thing. The lesson I'm going to try to internalize here is to always do basic fact checking in my head, and if something seems extremely unlikely then look it up. Oh yeah, and if one is inclined to critique an article/movie, it helps to actually read/watch it rather than rely upon secondary sources. Particularly when said secondary sources clearly have a strong opinion that matches your own bias.
Slightly OT
(#48691)... but if you want to see a better movie, check out Ratatouille. Hands down the best film I have seen this year, and the best animated film in several years. It reminds me of Golden Age masterpieces like Lady and the Tramp.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
Live Free or Die Hard!
(#48696)I saw that yesterday. It's a pretty good popcorn flick. although as the action sequences got more and more ludicrous, I was risking serious injury by rolling my eyes so much.
Not to mention that some of the dialog was obviously (and badly) looped, most likely to excise some f-bombs for the PG-13 rating.
Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- reply
parentSegueing a bit more
(#48700)I don't know if this happens to anyone else, but as soon as an action scene overloads my internal plausibility meter, I start falling asleep. My brain says "too unreal," and I can't keep my eyes open, no matter how loud or kinetic the action is.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentA pretty good take on Sicko...
(#48678)...here.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
Also,
(#48879)since when do Democratic policy wonks repeat tired and debunked Republican talking points about malpractice?
I'd be astonished if this column didn't get this fellow gently pushed out the door of the Obama campaign.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentJust as likely
(#48898)that views like those are exactly why he's on Obama's campaign.
- reply
parentGood catch thanks for the link BD...
(#48843)Nt...
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
parentKinda cherry-picking.
(#48690)UK internists make about 55,000 pounds -- about $108,000 -- while US internists average about $157,000. source. The US and UK have pretty similar costs of living, so I'm not going to bother with PPP; if someone else wants to, fell free.
UK physicians work about 65 hours a week (source), compared to an average in the high 50s for US doctors (sources not so great here). So it looks like in order to get the same number of doctor-hours, we'd have to pay about twice as much as the Brits do.
The thing is, we already do. More than. That is, we could spend what we're currently spending and pay our current doctors' salaries -- and that's assuming that there would be no cost savings in administration or shifting of care priorities, which is where savings are expected.
His other claims are more nebulous and difficult to contradict, but this one really jumped out at me.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentSpot on
(#48685)Thanks for the link.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentReally...
(#48558)I don't think the entertainment pages are the place for this debate. I'm tired of reviewers expressing shock that Michael Moore didn't present all sides of the question... of course he didn't, he's doing advocacy.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Hey, if they'd content themselves with making
(#48580)the more nuanced case that "Sicko" is unbalanced (duh) as did CNN, that would be fine, if sort of pointless. When specific factual accusations are made that are ludicrous on their face, I gotta call that. And when those clearly false accusations are passed on as fact and cheered as demonstrative of Moore's dishonesty, ya gotta wonder how badly people need to believe in their narrative that they won't even pause to briefly examine if it makes any sense whatsoever.
Here's an example of dKos with a similarly false claim (called out in comments, to their credit, but also applauded). People aren't critical enough of information that matches their biases.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentPeople aren't critical enough.
(#48692)Um, you aren't supporting your point when you link to a diary in which a false claim is called out by persons who share the ideology of the claimant.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentCheck the timestamps of the comments
(#48695)There were many uncritical remarks along the lines of "Bush is a racist" before a few posters turned the tide. I'm not saying posters at dKos in general aren't critical enough, but many of those in that thread were too quick to accept an interpretation in line with their bias.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentSure,
(#48742)but your example shows a liberal community which is self-correcting in a way your sample conservative community isn't.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentIs that Kurt Loder of MTV?
(#48556)Now we get to hear what a bunch of movie critics think of the US healthcare system?
I don't care wha Kurt Loder thinks about movies.
I'm a curious person, I really am, but I'm at a loss finding anything of interest here...
...as I usually am w. Redstate.
Sir, How...
(#48570)dare you besmirch the name of Kurt Loder!!! Keeper of the MTV flame!! (he still works for MTV? Who knew?!)Interviewer of all things trivial?! Retract your statement, sir, immediately!!!
I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- reply
parentABSOLUTELY! Er, What's MTV???
(#48579)The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentGet hip to the beat daddyo.
(#48646)or whatever is cool.... um nowadays...just off to iron
my flares.
- reply
parentNEVAH!!!
(#48574)Not until he agrees to discuss Lee Marvin and only those things directly related to Lee Marvin.
Movie critics everywhere beware: follow the new terms of your vocation lest you taste my backhand.
- reply
parentIt's An Interesting Counterpoint. . .
(#48560). . .to a POV I've heard from certain quarters regarding people who--having heard about the subject matter of MM's latest crockumentary from multiple reliable sources and who choose not to help fund his latest expedition to the Hungry Heifer* buffet line by buying a ticket--criticize MM's work without actually sitting through it. Well, this guy--who I'd never heard of ten minutes ago--watches and comments on movies for a living. Either the movie part of it is relevant, or it isn't and the only thing that matters is the accuracy and honesty of the alleged factual content of it--which someone can derive from transcripts and derivative sources without sitting through it. Which one is it?
*--still the best name for a fictional restaurant e-ver.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
- reply
parentReasonable question
(#48564)Either the movie part of it is relevant, or it isn't ...
I guess I think of mainstream movie critics as particularly dim bulbs, barely able to comment on their own field of expertise, let alone another one. I don't pay attention to most. But I would read, I don't know, the New Yorker or something on the effectiveness of the message, if the movie comes across as cheap grandstanding, etc.
But I'm not going to listen to a movie critic of any stripe re: the accuracy of Moore's comparisons between healthcare systems across countries. Certainly not Kurt Loder of MTV.
... actually, if I had my way, all movie critics would be relegated to writing retrospectives about lee Marvin. C.f. e.g. Film Comment's most recent issue:
When it’s your turn to go, it’s your turn to go, and so when Angie Dickinson attempts to sidestep her well-earned fate in The Killers, Marvin effortlessly barks, “Lady, I just don’t have the time.”
He was just as no-nonsense in the real world: a guy who tossed a prankster roommate out of a second-story window with the same nonchalance as he did the initial script of Point Blank. No, Hollywood didn’t change Lee Marvin much, it just gave him a playground within which he could wage internal battles with himself over his cowardice, failure, masculinity, violent inclinations, and quest for a reason to crawl out of bed every morning. “To show my strength is nothing,” he once said of his acting. “To show my weakness is everything.”
http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/mj07/leemarvin.htm
- reply
parent