Sicko vs. the corporate media. Whose coverage of the health care issue is more balanced?

[Bjorn Against]

I just got back from seeing Sicko, and I must say that every word of praise this film has received is well deserved. I don't want to sit here and simply repeat the well deserved praise you have already heard in countless other reviews though, instead I want to focus on one of the main criticisms this film has received and show you exactly why that criticism should be rejected.

Yes, they tell us that Michael Moore is biased. They tell us that he only focuses on the facts that fit his position and ignores alternative viewpoints. While it may be true that he does not give any of the corporate shills that run our health care system any airtime to make their case, we need to ask ourselves why should he give them any airtime? But more importantly yet we need to ask why the corporate media has any business saying Moore's coverage of the issue is biased, when their own coverage of the issue has consistently ignored advocates of single payer health care while praising the new "innovations" of the pharmaceutical companies.

Every day we are bombarded with ads from the drug companies, the insurance companies, and the HMOs. These ads cut into the middle of our "news" broadcasts to tell us about how these companies are working serve us and protect health. They tell us that we are in good hands with them, and that is that. We don't see Michael Moore in their commercials telling us the alternative viewpoint, nor do we have the "news" anchors critique the ads once the commercial ends. After all the media is not too good about criticizing the people who send them boatloads of money.

In fact not only does the "news" media not critique the ads they air for the health industry, but they run other ads for them which happen to be disguised as news. Many people do not know what Video News Releases (VNRs) are, but everybody needs to know. Video News Releases are "news" segments which are not filmed by journalists but rather by industry lobby groups. They look like ordinary news segments with a reporter giving us information about some new drug or health care innovation, but the difference which is usually not disclosed to us is that we are watching what is essentially an advertisement and not news.

So for everyone criticizes Moore's film for being biased I want them to explain why we should be criticizing a man who is very open about where he stands, while we ignore a media which runs VNRs filmed by the industry and disguises them as news without disclosing who produced them? What network in the corporate media has ever given advocates of Universal Health Care equal time with those who support the current system? What network has allowed consumer groups to go on the air on a regular basis to give the side story that the ads are leaving out?

We have an industry who has continuously promised us good coverage if only send them several hundred or even thousands of dollars a month, only to back out on us when we need them most. Why should Michael Moore give airtime to people who have continuously made false promises to us? Why do spin doctors who make their living off deceiving us deserve time in our media when they won't give us time in theirs?

Maybe Michael Moore could make a deal. Maybe he could film something which includes equal time for the corporate shills, if they give him equal time in their commercials that they air on our television screens every night. Why is it that one side who produces media to promote their position is criticized for bias, while the massive amounts of advertisements are consistently given a free pass for their lack of balance?

We are fortunate to have a real journalist like Michael Moore who is very open and honest with us about where his position lies. Now if only the corporate media could have half his integrity and stop pretending to be neutral when they are clearly not then and only then will I stop putting the word "news" in quotes when I talk about them.

[AX10]

1. The healthcare crooks have billions of dollars at their disposal...

to counter Moore. He does not have to offer them any airtime as they can easily buy their own.

[Bjorn Against]

4. Exactly.

It is only the activist filmmakers like Moore that they go after for being biased, while they ignore the huge amounts of money the other spends on propaganda for their side.

[and-justice-for-all]

2. If it was left to Mainstream Media...

..There is nothing wrong with the US healthcare system.

[PA Democrat]

14. The MSM has turned a blind eye for years as they took billions in advertising dollars from

the health insurance industry and big pharma. They have been bought off for years.

[Gabi Hayes]

3. the money they'll spend to eviscerate him will make that spent by F911 detractors

look miniscule

eviscerate, as in

surgically

he won't know what hit him

just sit back and watch the best of corporate America go after him

remember Harry and Louise?

I wonder if they'll come out of retirement, all greyhaired and such, to remind us how evil socialized healthcare is

you know, like socialized POLICE

and socialized FIREMEN

[BrklynLiberal]

6. I wonder if this particular issue is one that will hit too close to home for everyone to

be fooled by the PR of the media. Virtually everyone who is not a millionaire must have encountered some problem with the medical establishment in their lifetime..whether for themselves, their children, or their parents.
I fervently hope that this touches that spot in everyone that finally wakes them up to the cruelty, selfishness, and hypocrisy of what is being done to this country by this administration.

[Gabi Hayes]

8. here's how they're spinning it, oh so smoothly, via PBS Newshour tonight:

this is how they ended the taped segment. NO back and forth between opposing voices, btw

some guy was oozing unctuously how people don't WANT a big argument about this now; it's TOO POLITICAL!

all they care about is 'getting the best deal they can,' or something very close to that.

that's how they ended it. of COURSE the 'health' industry got the last word

of course......

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

9. I saw that segment as well tonight on the News Hour.

Totally disgusting. :puke:

[Bjorn Against]

10. Yeah, I'm sure people would rather keep paying hundreds or thousands per month for insurance...

It is just so much better to pay huge sums for a service that can deny your claims based on the flimsiest of evidence than it is to have a political discussion. We should just allow the insurance companies to be the only one with a voice, that way we won't have to have an argument because everyone will be happy right?

I hate it when these pundits try to tell me what us "American people" want, because last time I checked I was an American and I usually don't want what they tell me I want.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. And all those uninsured people would rather go on with no insurance! n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

5. I just got the same response from a friend who saw it tonight.

She said it should be required viewing for EVERYONE!!! She told me I MUST MUST MUST see it, and make sure to tell everyone I know to make sure to see it.
She said she was totally embarrassed by this country's policies toward health care and the movie convinced her once and for all that when she retires, she is leaving the country.
I did discuss with her that she must stay active until that time....and she agrees.

[hellbound-liberal]

7. You hit the nail on the head MN Against Bush!

"After all the media is not too good about criticizing the people who send them boatloads of money."- There's a reason that the main advertisers during the evening "news" broadcasts are from the pharmaceutical industry. I heard it from someone who was in the business. Their purpose isn't really to push new drugs, their main purpose is to create a dependency on their advertising revenues so the "journalists" won't criticize them. It's been working at PBS for years, ever since Mobil started underwriting Masterpiece Theater.

[Bjorn Against]

11. Yes, that is what I want people to think about.

Those ads you see on television are not entirely about selling you products, they are also about buying favorable coverage. If you look at some of the commercials on the air it is unclear what they are even trying to sell, that is because some of them are not trying to sell anything. Who looks at an Archer Daniels Midland ad and thinks, "hey I should start buying Archer Daniels Midland foods". Archer Daniels Midland does not put their logo on the corn you buy in the store, they don't put their logo on hardly any of their products or if they do you have to look really closely to even find it. They aren't selling you anything, they are buying something from the media. People need to think about that, because it does effect the coverage of important news stories.

[AX10]

17. Exactly!

[BrklynLiberal]

12. Exactly. One has to wonder why else those big corporations would give $ to PBS

or any other public opinion purveyor for that matter.
It is TOTALLY for favorable coverage...

[jwirr]

13. In The Assault on Reason Al Gore tells us that we need to return

to reason based on sound factual evidence. It is not about balance it is about facts.

[Bjorn Against]

15. That is true, it is really not about balance.

The point I was trying to make is that Moore does take a stand, and while doing so may not bring balance in the sense that each side gets equal coverage in Moore's film it does allow us to balance the propaganda we receive from other sources. In the end however it is about facts, and Moore is being far more up front and open about his facts than the corporate media is.

[farmboxer]

16. Drug companies are criminal. Kevin Trudeau took them on also

Michael Moore will be attacked by the right wing criminals because they don't want to lose one penny. Notice the right wing takes the corporate side always. We have never been treated fairly by the corporate news network At this time, CNN is attacking Dems, but not Repubs! I know which side the corporate media is one.

The truth to a republican is like a cross to a vampire.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

19. 'NUFF SAID!!! I have nothing to add to your excellent post!

Well, except Moore doesn't claim to be a journalist. But, other than that,...everything you said!!!

:applause:

[Bjorn Against]

20. He doesn't claim to be a journalist, but he is a better journalist than many who do claim that