Michael Moore & the documentary

[luchog]

Fifth-highest grossing documentary since at least 1982 is "not a very good number"? "Bombing"? "Not very many people will see"?

Keep in mind that these numbers are gross, not net. You also have to factor in the production, distribution, and promotion costs. I'd like to know what the net is on F9/11, Sicko, and Penguins before I'd make any categorical statement about how monetarily successful they are.

 

[jimtron]

Keep in mind that these numbers are gross, not net. You also have to factor in the production, distribution, and promotion costs. I'd like to know what the net is on F9/11, Sicko, and Penguins before I'd make any categorical statement about how monetarily successful they are.

I still don't see what this issue has to do with the OP.

 

[Number Six]

How factual MM's movies are is one thing and how persuasive he is is another. With regard to the latter point I don't think he is very good. Parts of F911 made personal fun of the US President and not in a light way. Comedians and social commentators do that some time but someone doing in a move about a serious topic trying to make a serious point isn't going to persuade the American public but rather is just going to piss them off. Or at least a certain chunk of them. They'll write off anything else in the movie after that and anything in his future movies too.

Granted MM is in a tough position when making such a movie because if he doesn't make it controversial then it won't get as much publicity and even if good points are made it won't reach as wide of an audience. But still there has to be a better way than doing it the way MM does, especially since he was already famous before F911 and even before BfC.

I saw him on CNN the other day debating Sanjay Gupta. He came off so poorly that if he were arguing 1+1=2 and Gupta was arguing 1+1=3 MM still would've lost in the eyes of the viewers. He got so mad I thought he was going to have a coronary even though Sanjay Gupta, just as every time I've ever seen him, was civil and polite and articulate and on and on. Gupta admitted a mistake but MM wouldn't admit his.

Bill O'Reilly, as pompous as he is, admits mistakes but not MM. Iroincally, as far apart as those two are politically they remind me of one another in that neither can hack it when in an atmosphere that they can't control and that is hostile, which probably is why MM ignores his standing invitation to go on O'Reilly even though that is obviously what the potential persuadees to his POV are watching. Of course, going on O'Reilly and in the process challenging O'Reilly to a debate on a neutral field would be a good move, even though O'Reilly wouldn't accept it, because it would put the avoidance onus on O'Reilly instead of MM. But MM probably couldn't even hack that successfully and even if he could and O'Reilly accepted the offer, MM would lose the debate not because he's on the wrong side but because he's much worse at persuading people than is O'Reilly.

MM is good at giving a certin impression in movies but bad at forseeing how the American public will interpret that image.

 

[kellyb]

I thought Gupta and MM both came off like ding-dongs in the interview.
Moore like a 12 year old raving lunatic and Gupta like a snide little robot with a funny look on his face.

I've never been particularly fond of either one, though.

 

[PixyMisa]

Haven't seen the film, but did Moore discuss the problems with health care in Cuba - the perennial shortages of drugs and basic medical supplies, the dilapidated and sometimes unsanitary state of facilities, the dichotomy between care provided to customers paying with hard currency and regular Cubans?

Oh, and did he mention the Cuban infant mortality rate?

 

[kellyb]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/story?id=1266515

At the same time, other countries are improving their infant mortality rates to the point that they have surpassed the United States. Cuba, for example, reported a lower 2002 rate than the United States at 6.3.

 

[jimtron]

Bill O'Reilly, as pompous as he is, admits mistakes but not MM.

How many times has O'Reilly admitted mistakes? Are you saying MM never admitted any mistakes?

AFAIK, Moore has not made the kind of egregious lies as O'Reilly, such as lying about winning a Polk award, and claiming that France's economy was hurt by his encouraging a boycott of the country, which he sourced to the made-up publication "Paris Business Review." If Moore has made these kind of blatant fabrications, please post them with sources here.

Haven't seen the film, but did Moore discuss the problems with health care in Cuba - the perennial shortages of drugs and basic medical supplies, the dilapidated and sometimes unsanitary state of facilities, the dichotomy between care provided to customers paying with hard currency and regular Cubans?

Oh, and did he mention the Cuban infant mortality rate?

I don't know; I haven't seen the film. But what's your point? Did he claim that Cuba was a great country? My limited understanding of this stunt is that he was pointing out that Guantanamo Bay prisoners get better health care than millions of America; that even in a place as poor and screwed up as Cuba offers all of their citizens (?) free health care. Please specify your criticism.

 

[PixyMisa]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/story?id=1266515

Yep, exactly.

The problem with that is that Cuba reports infant mortality differently to most other nations. In the US, an infant born alive and breathing but weighing only 400 grams will go into intensive neo-natal care; sadly, a large percentage of such extremely underweight babies will die within their first day of life.

Cuba simply reports such babies as stillborn, and doesn't include them in the infant mortality statistics at all.

I'm not sure whether Cuba actually publishes their criteria for infant mortality, but this pattern can be deduced from other statistics: Cuba has very similar numbers of moderately underweight births to the US, but the reported statistics for severely underweight births are one third those of the US. Either the birth weight distribution magically changes only in one part of the curve, or doctors aren't reporting severely underweight infants as live births.

It's worthy of its own chapter in How to Lie With Statistics.

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't know; I haven't seen the film. But what's your point? Did he claim that Cuba was a great country?

Don't know if he's done so in this film; I seem to recall him making some remarks to that effect elsewhere, but that's irrelevant.

My limited understanding of this stunt is that he was pointing out that Guantanamo Bay prisoners get better health care than millions of America

This is certainly true. Health care at Guantanamo Bay is excellent. Still wouldn't want to live there...

that even in a place as poor and screwed up as Cuba offers all of their citizens (?) free health care. Please specify your criticism.

My criticism is that Cuba offers free but extremely poor health care (and bans private health care) and that the Cuban government fabricates statistics to make it look better than it is. Having not seen the film either, I don't know what Moore says about Cuba's health care system, so I don't know whether he presents this accurately or not. On prior form, though, I suspect he is extremely selective in what facts he reports. Certainly, nothing I've seen suggests that Sicko is harshly critical of Cuba's failures and dishonesty.

There are a lot of doctors in Cuba, but there's also a black market in aspirin and antibiotics and surgical sutures, because hospitals don't have enough.

The question you raised was not whether Cuba offers free health care (it does), but whether Moore is unfairly criticised for his biased reporting (I think he is deserving of far more severe criticism than he gets). The way he reports Cuba's health care system is offered as a test case.

 

[jimtron]

Don't know if he's done so in this film; I seem to recall him making some remarks to that effect elsewhere, but that's irrelevant.

Having not seen the film either, I don't know what Moore says about Cuba's health care system, so I don't know whether he presents this accurately or not. On prior form, though, I suspect he is extremely selective in what facts he reports.

There's no point in arguing things that Moore may or may not have done. Could we please stick to known facts?

Certainly, nothing I've seen suggests that Sicko is harshly critical of Cuba's failures and dishonesty.

You haven't seen the film, so how would you know?

The question you raised was not whether Cuba offers free health care (it does), but whether Moore is unfairly criticised for his biased reporting (I think he is deserving of far more severe criticism than he gets). The way he reports Cuba's health care system is offered as a test case.

Ahh, back on topic, almost. I'm not sure what you mean by "offered as a test case" though. If you believe that Moore derserves "far more severe criticism," perhaps you could support that argument with specific examples, instead of speculating about a film you haven't seen?

 

[PixyMisa]

There's no point in arguing things that Moore may or may not have done. Could we please stick to known facts?

I did say it's irrelevant.

You haven't seen the film, so how would you know?

Reviews. If Moore were harshly critical of Cuba's health care system, I expect someone would have noted that.

Ahh, back on topic, almost. I'm not sure what you mean by "offered as a test case" though.

Neither of us have seen the movie. I've presented some key facts about problems in Cuba's health care system. Now, if we find out how Moore presents Cuba's health care system in his film, we can determine whether he is fair and balanced, or a lying weasel - or somewhere in between. That was the whole point, which you seem to have avoided.

If you believe that Moore derserves "far more severe criticism," perhaps you could support that argument with specific examples, instead of speculating about a film you haven't seen?

This can (probably) be easily resolved by evaluating the test case. Feel free.

 

[jimtron]

PixyMisa: If you'd like to post specific examples of why you think Moore deserves "far more severe criticism," please do. I've seen none from you so far.

 

[kellyb]

Don't know if he's done so in this film; I seem to recall him making some remarks to that effect elsewhere, but that's irrelevant.

This is certainly true. Health care at Guantanamo Bay is excellent. Still wouldn't want to live there...

My criticism is that Cuba offers free but extremely poor health care (and bans private health care) and that the Cuban government fabricates statistics to make it look better than it is. Having not seen the film either, I don't know what Moore says about Cuba's health care system, so I don't know whether he presents this accurately or not. On prior form, though, I suspect he is extremely selective in what facts he reports. Certainly, nothing I've seen suggests that Sicko is harshly critical of Cuba's failures and dishonesty.

There are a lot of doctors in Cuba, but there's also a black market in aspirin and antibiotics and surgical sutures, because hospitals don't have enough.

The question you raised was not whether Cuba offers free health care (it does), but whether Moore is unfairly criticised for his biased reporting (I think he is deserving of far more severe criticism than he gets). The way he reports Cuba's health care system is offered as a test case.

I've seen that repeated in blogs, but none are supported with links.

Here's one place where Cuba's stats for "premature birth mortality" and low birthweight rates are given:


http://www.medicc.org/publications/medicc_review/0905/spotlight.html

The CDC also published something recently on our infant mortality:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/551734

The report shows that America's 2004 infant mortality rate was 6.79 infant deaths per 1,000 live births. That's not statistically different than the 6.84 infant mortality rate in 2003 -- a rate worse than that reported for Cuba.

"Six countries had an infant mortality rate that was half that of the U.S. rate in 2003, and another nine countries had rates that were two-thirds that of the U.S. infant mortality rate," note CDC researchers Brady E. Hamilton, PhD, and colleagues.

"The position of the United States relative to other countries remains unfavorable in terms of infant mortality rates," says the CDC report.

The problem: a high percentage of low-birth-weight babies, the "heterogeneity of the U.S. population relative to many other developed countries, and "continuing disparities in health among disadvantaged relative to more advantaged groups," the report suggests.

The infant mortality rate among non-Hispanic black Americans is 13.60 per 1,000 -- twice the death rate within 1 year of birth than for white and Hispanic babies.

 

[PixyMisa]

I've seen that repeated in blogs, but none are supported with links.

Yeah; I'd like to see the primary data too.

Here's one place where Cuba's stats for "premature birth mortality" and low birthweight rates are given:

http://www.medicc.org/publications/medicc_review/0905/spotlight.html

But there's no data there about the distribution of birth weights, or of how the statistical measures are defined.

The CDC also published something recently on our infant mortality:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/551734

Now, that does look significant. We can assume that the definitions are consistent, so there is a real effect here. The number itself doesn't tell us what that effect is, though.

 

[PixyMisa]

PixyMisa: If you'd like to post specific examples of why you think Moore deserves "far more severe criticism," please do. I've seen none from you so far.

My criticism is that Moore uses factually true statements removed from context and knitted carefully together to present his agenda; that he is a propagandist, pure and simple; and that he presents himself otherwise.

See, for example, this article by Christopher Hitchens.

Now, if Moore were a college film student, his work could be dismissed as merely naive. But he's a national celebrity, feted by the Democratic Party, and as such a deserving target of harsher criticism than a less-public figure might be.

 

[luchog]

The CDC also published something recently on our infant mortality:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/551734

The infant mortality rate among non-Hispanic black Americans is 13.60 per 1,000 -- twice the death rate within 1 year of birth than for white and Hispanic babies.

[/quote]
This is an interesting example of a statistic out of context, since it doesn't include the relative living conditions, diet, and access to health care of the various populations, nor the patterns of drug use. Without that information, the statistic is meaningless. Also, did it include illegal immigrant Hispanic populations, or just US citizens?

Just to illustrate, Hispanic populations, if Illegals are factored in, have a similar standard of living and access to health care when compared to Black Americans. So what causes the dramatic discrepancy? Drug use? Black Americans have higher rates of certain types of drug use than Hispanics (and non-Hispanic caucasians). Diet? I believe (though I can't find numbers to back this up) that Black Americans tend to have worse dietary habits in general.

There is also the issue of teen pregnancies, which have higher rates of low birth weights and related health problems. Black Americans have a teen pregnancy rate that is over twice that of non-Hispanic caucasians, and 30-50% higher than that of Hispanics.

Not to mention STD rates, which are, depending on the STD, between a few times and a few dozen times higher among Black Americans than among caucasians, Hispanic and non-. Rates of gonorrhea are astronomical among Black Americans in general by comparison to any other population. Syphilis rates are up to 5 times higher. Rates of genital herpes are considerably higher among Black Americans, with black females double the infection rate of caucasian females. Rates of congenital STDs (babies born with STDs), another major factor for infant death, are similarly high. 69% of all HIV positive females in the US are black.

(Sources: NIH, CDC)

Context changes the meaning of a statistic dramatically. That is why I tend to dislike Moore's work. His statistics are generally accurate; but he manipulates the context to encourage false conclusions. As for the the infant mortality statistic, it's clearly not closely correlated with access to healthcare, but rather a problem of much greater complexity, involving diet, age, STDs, and drug use.

 

[Number Six]

How many times has O'Reilly admitted mistakes? Are you saying MM never admitted any mistakes?

AFAIK, Moore has not made the kind of egregious lies as O'Reilly, such as lying about winning a Polk award, and claiming that France's economy was hurt by his encouraging a boycott of the country, which he sourced to the made-up publication "Paris Business Review." If Moore has made these kind of blatant fabrications, please post them with sources here.

O'Reilly admits mistakes on his show all the time. What's more, a general approach of his is to state his case and then say to his guest "Am I wrong?" before letting them answer, although that doesn't mean he'll concede he's wrong if the guest disagrees, but at least he puts it out there as a possibility.

People focus on the wrong thing when they focus on O'Reilly's factual mistakes. He is on TV and radio for hours every day so naturally he's going to be wrong sometimes. But relative to how long he's on every day, he isn't wrong very often, which isn't surprising since he has a staff to do research for him to make sure he's right. The problem with O'Reilly isn't that he can't get his facts straight but rather that he spins by framing the question a certain way or only covers certain sides to a story.

O'Reilly is on several hours each weekeday whereas MM comes up with a two hour movie once every few years, which is a much easier bar to hit when as far as getting all the facts striaght. Still, MM had steam coming out of his ears because Gupta, while admitting his own mistake, pointed out a slippery tactic MM had used. Why not just say "I see your point, Sanjay, and I should've done that bit differently, but I think the overall message of my movie still stands."

And half the time when I see MM on TV and the setting isn't completely friendly he loses his cool and comes off poorly. The settings where the interviewier might be a bit hostile are exactly the ones where he has a chance to make converts but he just can't seem to control himself. Going on Jon Stewart, while nice to promote his movie and getting people that agree with him to go see it, isn't going to win any new converts.

 

[JoeEllison]

If Moore were harshly critical of Cuba's health care system, I expect someone would have noted that.

You'd be crazy to expect that. Cra-ray-zee!

ETA: Big collection of reviews...

 

[Unabogie]

It's pretty amusing watching people who haven't seen the film construct straw men based on their ignorance and then knock them down.

The Cuba portion of the film is as follows:

Americans who volunteered during 9/11 as rescue workers were discarded by the federal government since they weren't technically "government workers". Many of them are very sick from the toxins they inhaled while rescuing people. Many of them are needlessly suffering because they have no or insufficient health care coverage. Michael Moore took them to G'tmo to show that even the "evildoers" of 9/11 are getting better care than the "heroes" of 9/11. Of course, the G'tmo guards wouldn't let MM in, so they ask the Cubans about getting some health care. Cuba treats them free of charge. One woman finds the inhaler that she spends $120 for selling in Cuba for 5 cents. Yes, 5 cents.

So, the fact that Cuba is a bad system, or a bad country, does not negate MM's point here, which is why these criticisms are so inane. They bolster his point. Why should a backwards, screwed up country like Cuba be able to render doctor's care to these people but ours can't or won't? Why should we even have to compare our system to Cuba's, since we should have a system far better? The worse you make Cuba sound, the more that point stands out.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Compared to Fahrenheit 911, it is a bomb. A big stinking bomb. Oh don’t count too much on video making up the difference with Sicko. As big as Fahrenheit 911 was, it didn’t even make 2 million on video. March of the Penguins made 30 million on video.

But you can't compare to Fahrenheit 911 with the rest. It is unique in the history of documentaries. March of Penguins was a documentary in the general since of the word. It was big, beautiful pictures of the Antarctic and Penguins. I could be wrong, but I believe it even had actors voicing over the penguins. Not the same thing. Besides, your statement that "Sicko" is a bomb is not born out when you compare its first weeks receipts with the total take of previous documentaries.

Except I don't see where Moore did this. He used United Nations Human Development Report statistics. It was CNN who used different sources, and still CNN was forced to apologize for getting their facts wrong.

Here's a link from a diary at the DailyKos which I think does a fair job of discussing the criticisms.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/15/202247/558

What I read of the CNN website is that CNN apologized on one point where they got their facts wrong, but not on the other points. Not that there was a big discrepancy between what CNN and Moore were saying. It seems the biggest thing was that Moore used statistics from an unsourced BBC report as well as picking numbers from different sources that better reflected his point. Though from what I see, the differences between what CNN were saying as legitimate numbers and what Moore was actually using, was not that significant and his general points were not wrong.

But that was from the CNN sight and I have not yet seen the documentary.