We Got Yer Holiday Spirit Right Here
Eat My Blog: Blogger Bake Sale Will Benefit LA Foodbank
-thumb-110x110-461780.jpg)
Simply Wrong Food: IHOP's Holiday Pancakes
Galaxy 2009 Season Recap
DVD Review: Kobe Doin' Work
We know that ususally our "Lunch Time Video Break" is more light and airy. But we also know that you're informed and in-the-know citizens who would enjoy a great segment from Wolf Blitzer's show on CNN where Michael Moore essentially sticks it to the man, CNN and Wolf. Now yelling at Wolf about how his network operates is a little like yelling at the customer service agent at the baggage counter about the airline losing your bag. It might feel good, but it's misguided anger. Big honcho executives at CNN are responsible for ad dollars and who sponsors a segment. Nonetheless, Michael Moore's thing is not really to promote his movie, Sicko, but more to let everyone know all the pent up anger and animosity he had held since his last time on a movie junket. His "schtick" is to be relentless and angry and stand up for the American people. So is he standing up for me? Is that the way I would want to be represented given the chance - I don't think so. But no matter how you feel about Michael Moore, you have to give him credit for not giving a damn. And to be honest, give CNN credit for running the piece as is.
Now what I would really pay the big bucks for is to have a clip of what happened when the cameras went off and Wolf yelled, "Who keeps inviting this asshole on my show?"
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Yelling at a news anchor for shitty reporting is not misguided anger. Wolf is a representative of CNN and his lack of involvement in programming/sponsorship decisions doesn't get him off the hook for being the mouthpiece for the man that he is.
And CNN deserves no credit. It was live, not taped, so they couldn't exactly edit the piece. They smelled ratings is all, which is why they had Mr. Moore on Larry King last night.
I actually swore off CNN over this. Sort of a "last straw" sort of situation. MSNBC gets my morning/lunchtime viewing now because they serve me up my nightly dose of Keith-O.
Big surprise here. Network invites Michael Moore on. Michael Moore goes ballistic because it's live and he knows he can. Network is surprised?
Moore actually got pretty owned on King's show when Gupta was on. It would be interesting to see how much better he'd do with connecting with an audience if he didn't come across as so arrogant and condescending to EVERYONE who might (just might!) have an opposing view. He's not interested in a debate.
Moore was funny on Larry King, Gupta made a fool out of him. But we all know it's Bush's fault.
I think it's a fair point that Moore may have overreacted to the Gupta package (the thing that originally set him off while on Blitzer's show).
But it's also a fair point that CNN took the $251 figure and turned it into $25. Yeah, they corrected it after the fact, but I can't see where that kind of sloppiness would sit well with anyone who is attempting to kickstart a real healthcare debate.
As far as Gupta "owning" MM on King, I didn't see that. I think Moore didn't get much of a word in edgewise, and when he did he didn't make the best use of it. But Gupta was all over the map, too.
And Moore has a point in bashing Blitzer regarding CNN's coverage of Iraq, the elections, and Farenheit 911. If Wolf had any integrity he would've apologized. The press has a job to do and they haven't been doing it. If they had, we may not be losing heros every day in Iraq. Similarly, Gupta (as a healthcare 'journalist') could be an advocate for change, but he is not.
Thus, fuck Sanjay Gupta.
My opinions sway in the same direction as Michael Moore sometimes but I took issue with his tirade on Larry King last night.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta conceded to Moore that his report had an error, however Moore continued to blow his top. As Gupta argued with him, Moore was only able to contribute the same rhetoric he uses in his movie, over and over. Did the guy come onto the show with just 5 talking points and tag-lines, or is he actually capable of debating an issue?
So now I've been watching clips and clips of Michael Moore and he really does have a rhetoric, a schtick that is the same as if he were a stand-up comedian. He makes a point, but is the type of a guy in an in-person argument you'd throw up your hands in disgust for not being able to communicate what you're trying to say and he's obviously not listening to you - only waiting to get a word in edgewise. It's like the blind leading the blind - the journalists haven't been doing their job, but you just can't have a healthy debate with Michael Moore either. So what happens next?