Stelter's plaint would mean more if he'd face up to how badly CNN's Sanjay Gupta fared when he sat down with Joe Rogan.

CNN’s @brianstelter: People trusting Joe Rogan over “newsrooms like CNN” are “a problem that’s much bigger than Spotify” pic.twitter.com/3RnifScIzk

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 1, 2022

 

Background: "CNN praises Dr. Sanjay Gupta for interview with Joe Rogan, buries viral moments/Gupta admitted his CNN colleagues should not have referred to Rogan's COVID treatment as 'horse dewormer'" (NY Post, October 15, 2021). That's something I blogged at the time, here: "In trying to present Sanjay Gupta as a science-is-real hero for talking to Joe Rogan for 3 hours, CNN laid the groundwork for fact-checkers to draw attention to all the most damaging omissions." 

ADDED: Writing this post and searching my own archive for Sanjay Gupta, I turned up a post from January 7, 2009, when President-Elect Obama was considering Gupta for the position of Surgeon General. There was debate at the time about the way Gupta had treated the filmmaker Michael Moore about his movie "Sicko."

In trying to present Sanjay Gupta as a science-is-real hero for talking to Joe Rogan for 3 hours, CNN laid the groundwork for fact-checkers to draw attention to all the most damaging omissions.

Fox News embraces the opportunity in "CNN praises Dr. Sanjay Gupta for interview with Joe Rogan, buries viral moments" (Fox News).

Ironically, CNN's self-serving effort to make Gupta look better than he did has the unintended effect of highlighting Rogan's serious and informed questioning about the vaccine and the covid therapeutics. And, more generally, it undermines CNN's reputation for journalism. 

Lots of transcribed conversation and video clips at the Fox News link.

That's just Fox News. I'm sure other sites are working on the same material, and I look forward to hearing what Joe himself has to say about the way Gupta enjoyed his hospitality for 3 hours then retreated into CNN world and trashed him. 

I say "his hospitality" because that's the feeling the podcast gives the listener and it's something Joe openly talked to Gupta about creating. You have the sense that these are 2 friends talking the way they'd talk all evening if they got together for drinks. You could accuse Joe of setting a trap, making the guest feel too comfortable and amiable. But I think Gupta knew what he was doing, and he intended to trap and use Joe too. 

"[Joe Rogan] seems to see himself less a rapscallion and more of a sort of guardian of the galaxy, pointing out the missteps made by large institutions..."

"... such as the government and mainstream medicine, and then wondering aloud if they can still be trusted to make recommendations or even mandates for the rest of us."

Writes Sanjay Gupta in "Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Why Joe Rogan and I sat down and talked -- for more than 3 hours" (CNN).

To many, he represents a queen bee in a hive mind, advancing free will and personal liberty above all else. The free will of your fist ends where my nose begins. When I said this to Joe, the MMA fighter, he paused, sat back and listened for a while. I asked him: Is it not possible to advocate strongly for personal freedoms, but also recognize the unique threat a highly contagious disease represents?...

Joe Rogan corners Sanjay Gupta.

Joe Rogan asks Sanjay Gupta if it bothers him that CNN outright lied about Rogan taking horse dewormer to recover from covid. This is fantastic: pic.twitter.com/PEgJqIXhSD

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) October 14, 2021

All Gupta can do is smile and act casual and charming.

"BPP. That should be the name of the channel. Big Potential Problems."

I say out loud, overhearing CNN heads yammering after the President's doctor gave his little press briefing. There must be problems. They commentators are urgently, fervently trying to scare up some Orange-Man-Bad news. I hear the phrase "big potential problems" and start writing this post. Before I can get to the end, I hear "potentially disturbing revelations." The word "potential" appears over and over. They're so hot to come up with some stories, just brainstorming in front of the cameras. We're laughing.

UPDATE: Now they've reported that Chris Christie — who was involved in Trump's debate prep — has tested positive.

Also on CNN, Dr. Sanjay Gupta nails the serious anti-Trump theme: "It could have been avoided with basic public health measures." Yes, why wasn't Trump scrupulously protected? I presume he chose not to accept the protection, and that protecting the President from disease is not like protecting him from other kinds of physical threats, where security experts overrule the President's preference.

What happened with Sanjay Gupta?

"Gupta, who was once named one of the 'sexiest men alive' by People Magazine, was never officially named to the post and continued to report on CNN. He did not issue a statement or explain his decision Thursday. Sources said the medical journalist told CNN executives that he wanted to devote more time to his medical practice and to his duties at the network. But one source close to him said he was very disheartened by Daschle's fate and fearful he was not going to get a prominent role in the health reform process."

Okay. I understand. Thanks for the explanation, WaPo. He's rich and prominently sexy. He can't go into government without major flash and admiration. And some people were even going to pick at his credentials, maybe beat him up the way they did to poor little Tom. That won't do.

"The trouble with Sanjay Gupta," says Paul Krugman, is seen in the way he "mugged" Michael Moore.

I know, you're thinking: If that's the trouble, bring it on. But let's read what Krugman has to say:

So apparently Obama plans to appoint CNN’s Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General. I don’t have a problem with Gupta’s qualifications. But I do remember his mugging of Michael Moore over Sicko. You don’t have to like Moore or his film; but Gupta specifically claimed that Moore “fudged his facts”, when the truth was that on every one of the allegedly fudged facts, Moore was actually right and CNN was wrong. What bothered me about the incident was that it was what Digby would call Village behavior: Moore is an outsider, he’s uncouth, so he gets smeared as unreliable even though he actually got it right. It’s sort of a minor-league version of the way people who pointed out in real time that Bush was misleading us into war are to this day considered less “serious” than people who waited until it was fashionable to reach that conclusion. And appointing Gupta now, although it’s a small thing, is just another example of the lack of accountability that always seems to be the rule when you get things wrong in a socially acceptable way.

Krugman's link — at "mugging" — goes to a USA Today article about the conflict, which mainly dealt with the amount of money spent on medical care per person in the United States compared to Cuba. You can see Gupta and Moore having it out on the Larry King show on video here or read the transcript here. The fact that Gupta actually did get some numbers wrong overshadows the policy dispute: Moore wants the government to pay for all medical care for everyone, and Gupta thinks Moore might be right, but that things are more complex than Moore will admit.

It's true, as Krugman says, that Moore comes across as an uncouth outsider and that we tend to feel an instinctive aversion to him. And Gupta is couth, an expert at projecting competence, expertise, and level-headedness. And Krugman is right that the uncouth speaker may be right when the couth speaker is wrong. On this occasion, Gupta got some things wrong, and where he was wrong, he quickly and clearly corrected himself and apologized. That's part of the couth style. So where is this "lack of accountability" that Krugman talks about? Gupta didn't get away with mistakes by speaking "in a socially acceptable way." Gupta was immediately called to account, and he stepped up to it. 

And what of Moore? Is he accountable? Moore may have not been wrong on this occasion, but he's been wrong in the past about plenty of things, and his entire filmmaking style is based on a strong point of view — that is, bias — that involves distortion and emotive exaggeration. Does Moore make corrections and apologize? His method involves going doggedly forward toward his predetermined goals — like government-managed health care or opposition to the war or gun control. 

So it's quite sensible — not some dysfunctional "village" reflex — to be skeptical when Moore speaks. At the same time, we listen to Moore — some of us — because he's got an artistic style that is often lively and funny and thought-provoking. He's chosen his uncouth, rebel style, and he uses his style every bit as successfully as Gupta uses his. Moore has scarcely been ostracized for his outsider manner. He's very popular. Some people hate him, but he's choosing to antagonize those people — it's part of his the polemical style that has made him rich and famous. 

So don't cry for Michael Moore, give Sanjay Gupta the credit he deserves, and don't swallow anything whole, whether it's served up by rebel filmmakers or sophisticated doctors.

For Surgeon General, Obama picks Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

Link.

Poll:

What is the significance of the Sanjay Gupta appointment?
	Obama has made a strong advance in the project of merging politics and showbiz.
	Surgeon General has long been a showbiz slot, so nothing much has changed.
pollcode.com free polls

ADDED: Cato@Liberty says:

[W]hy do we need a surgeon general in the first place? After all, can anyone name our current (acting) surgeon general?

In reality, the surgeon general is little more than the “national nanny,” hectoring us to stop smoking, lose weight, exercise more, and never ever go out without a condom. I’ve been flipping through my copy of the Constitution, and I can’t find the authorization for the federal government to take taxpayers’ money to establish an office to tell us how we should live our lives.