I just read Paul Krugman’s blog post on Sanjay Gupta as a possible Surgeon General. It was such sweet relief to realize that I was not alone in holding the man in low esteem ever since that spat with Michael Moore over the facts in the documentary Sicko.
Don’t get me wrong. I do have my issues with Michael Moore as well as with his film. But overall, on the facts, he was right about what ails the US healthcare system. Gupta as a Medical correspondent for CNN was supposed to critique the film and as in most critiques, highlight factual errors, exaggerations, looseness with the truth and overall provide as objective an opinion as is expected of a journalist about the film. He did none of that. His review was such a hatchet job that Moore had to provide point by point rebuttals on his website and even in the ”debate” between the two that took place on Larry King Live, Gupta kept on repeating his falsehoods aided by the talking corpse himself who forgot that his job was to moderate.
After watching that, I wondered what justified Gupta’s review of the movie. Was it personal? It couldn’t be. He was (and is) a university professor, a neurosurgeon, a former special adviser to then First Lady Hillary Clinton. Why would he pick on Michael Moore? Was it ideological? Was he one of those free-market conservatives who just hate “socialized medicine”? Gupta did not seem to have an ideological bend. Then maybe it was a professional issue; Gupta as a Doctor in the US Healthcare system that was being attacked, also felt attacked and wanted to strike back. Well, not quite either. After all, many other American doctors who work dutifully in the US system recognize its shortcomings and do not get any flack for speaking up about it.
So why was Gupta so opposed to Sicko to the point of fudging facts and journalistically botching a review? I could only draw the same conclusion Krugman has drawn. Gupta was perfectly happy with getting “things wrong in a socially acceptable way.” In other words, he was aware of the public mood on the issue and he chose to align his critique to that socially acceptable opinion irrespective of the facts. This is the kind of behavior pathological social-ladder climbers learn to perfect early. This is typical of what the Canadian thinker John Ralston Saul calls a “courtier” or a “Voltaire bastard”; a man who either has no opinions of his own or is perfectly happy to substitute them with anything that can advance his career, create new friends that can advance his carreer or open doors to new careers or new revenues. That is unfortunately also a character flaw in my book.
Now, Sanjay Gupta may be very qualified to be Surgeon General. I do not know. I am not qualified to make that judgement. What are the required qualifications for that job, anyway? But one thing is certain. A Surgeon General of United States should have a closer relationship with facts than Sanjay Gupta does. He or she should certainly hold opinions backed by empirical evidence and be willing to stand by those opinions regardless of the public mood. That after all is one of the indicators of a good scientist.
Rachel Sklar called Sanjay Gupta a dick. I will not do such a thing. But if pushed, I will happily quote Sklar.
January 8, 2009 at 4:46 pm
What was most bothersome about Dr. Gupta’s segments on CNN was the profusion of ads from pharmaceutical and insurance companies that served as bookends to his brief, mostly vapid discourses on health. Around the time of his despicable attack on Michael Moore’s movie I noted commercials for Plavix, Vytorrin, Accu-Chek, Ambien CR, and Caduet. (I haven’t watched since then, so I don’t know whether CNN still flaks for the bad guys.) The trouble with Dr. Gupta is that he has served for many years as the chief spokesperson for our bloated healthcare system. He’ll be an agent not for change but for maintaining the dismal status quo.
January 8, 2009 at 6:39 pm
John Ralston Saul, based upon the quote included above, is a hypocrite!
Saul lived with Canadian journalist Adrienne Clarkson for over a decade then made it legal and married her days before she was appointed Governor-General of Canada. It wouldn’t do to have a G-G who was “living in sin”! I couldn’t care less about the co-habiation – they’re both adults and can choose to live as they want. But to change your opinion on the necessity of marriage to advance your social position and career is exactly the situation Saul claims to abhor.
January 8, 2009 at 8:05 pm
JR Saul is no hypocrite in that cited marriage/G-G scenario. Not marrying one’s partner doesn’t indicate any animosity to marriage, even for oneself – it indicates at a minimum *indifference*. If an irrelevant “qualification” for the Governor-General job can be satisfied by marriage, rather than let it interfere with such an important development in one’s life, while one’s indifference to marriage *works both ways*, therefore allowing it as an option, then there is no reason not to get married when it serves a purpose. A superfluous marriage that does some benefit consistent with what you already stand for is no hypocrisy.
Gupta’s easily changeable public positions on *core issues* like single payers in healthcare are entirely different. Gupta took strong measures to oppose it, including lying. His career sponsors oppose it. That’s entirely different from an irrelevant issue, and a sign of a serious lack of integrity. A lack of integrity that undermines his qualifications to be a spokesmodel for America’s government healthcare policy, just as it’s being fundamentally reviewed after Gupta’s corporate sponsors have perverted it into a terminally ill burden.
January 9, 2009 at 4:03 am
His actions on Larry King Live may not have been in line with that of a man of his own words, thoughts or moral standards; but [from what you described] are the qualities of a politician!