SOMETIMES THE MEDIA MAKES ME SICKO

I saw Michael Moore's wonderful film, Sicko, a few weeks ago, and I've been itching to to write about it. But I find myself in a little bit of a quandary, because the movie is so convincing in its message that it doesn't really need (or want) my input. And for those of you who haven't seen it, I'd rather not take away from the power of the film by attempting to review it.

At the expense of stating the obvious, the overall topic of the movie is universal health care, and I already offered up my feelings on this issue in a previous post. I would, however, like to mention my favorite Giuliani quote from his recent speaking engagement in Montecito, CA:

Who has the best health care in the world? Who has a better health care system? Is there one we should borrow from somewhere else? Do you want the health care system they have in England? Or Germany, or Canada, or anyplace else?

I'll only say this: go see Sicko and then answer that question for yourself.

So, here I am three weeks after having seen the film, and it turns out that I actually do have something to write about: the media. After Moore's extremely controversial film, Fahrenheit 9/11, I remember being amazed at the media's passion to investigate and expose ... Michael Moore. Never mind that they completely dropped the ball when investigating anything Bush related ... Weapons of mass destruction? "Eh, I'm sure they're there somewhere." Iraqi links to al Qaeda? "Well, if Cheney says it 300 times, it must be true." No, except for a brave minority, the media was too wrapped up in its own patriotic fervor to properly do its job when it came to the White House. You'd think, then, that the media would look at the content of that movie and ask why they failed to talk about THE FACTS it brought to light. Well, you'd be wrong.

Fahrenheit 9/11 has long since left the public consciousness, but Sicko has put Moore back on center stage. And, what do you know, the media is at it again. After seeing Sicko, everyone's reaction should be, "Oh my god, how could we let this happen in the United States of America!?" From what I've seen, though, the media's reaction has been, "Oh my god, we need to do some serious digging to find some things Michael Moore left out!"

The best example of this phenomenon is the recent debate between Dr. Sanjay Gupta and Michael Moore on CNN. Dr. Gupta, who generally agreed with the message of the film, could have spent his energy talking about the corruption in hospital administrations and insurance companies. But he chose, rather, to discuss some nonsense about how some of Moore's numbers were from the BBC and how other reports had slightly different numbers. Nobody fudges numbers better than the Bush administration, but I never see CNN challenging them so aggressively?

Even my beloved Entertainment Weekly -- which (again) agreed with Moore's conclusions -- had to say this in their review:

And then he [Moore] looks at how a few other countries have (in his never-mistaken-for-humble opinion) done health care better: England, France, Canada, and, yes, Cuba. Moore's doofus persona wears thin ...

See what I mean? If you watch this film, there are a number of people and institutions deserving of the title "doofus." Michael Moore is fighting to make a better country for YOU and ME. We are all going to get sick some day, and he more than anyone else, is trying to help.

Who's really the doofus here?