Lying? Or Bad Research?
Cliff Urr writes "Several nights ago Larry King had on his show Michael Moore, director of the documentary "Sicko," and Sanjay Gupta, an MD with CNN who challenged some of the "facts" in Moore's film. Moore did an effective job showing Gupta's facts or charges were wrong and his own correct. The article at this link, titled, "In Sicko "fact check," CNN's Gupta falsely claimed his source's "only affiliation is with Vanderbilt University", http://mediamatters.org/items/200707120001 This article gives me the impression Gupta was lying, in saying he told a "falsehood," but he struck me as a decent, well-meaning and even kindly man who was telling the truth as he knew it. However, his information was simply wrong, inaccurate. The serious flaws in his research -"fact-checking" — is made crystal-clear in Moore's point-by-point rebuttal to Gupta on the former's web site here: http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article.php ?id=10017 If Gupta was not consciously uttering falsehoods, as I am inclined to think, did he merely have a bad day? (As anybody doing reference/research could.) Or is it something much more subtle, such as that his thinking occurs in a box that he never gets out of. And when one is thinking out of a too-small box about a subject whose roots are too big for the small box to handle, one ends up with terrible research results. This is not to say Moore's box does not limit him. It does, though from a different end of the spectrum than Gupta, which is a whole other story. What do you think?"