So you know how yesterday I posted about Michael Moore’s appearance on CNN, and my basic take was, “Michael Moore’s just looking for attention/I don’t think the Gupta piece was that bad”? Well, yesterday afternoon, Gupta admitted to getting one fact wrong in his piece: he misquoted a number used by Moore in Sicko in regards to per capita health care spending in Cuba. Later, Gupta appeared on Larry King Live opposite Moore. The first of three parts of that segment is embedded below.

In this segment, Moore says his people spoke with Gupta’s people on June 29th about inaccuracies in the piece; The Huffington Post posted email evidence of that conversation shortly before Larry King Live last night.

Was it irresponsible for CNN to re-run a clip that they knew contained inaccuracies? Sure. But post-CNN apology, what is Moore trying to achieve by continuing to beat this dead horse? It seems to all boil down to an issue of linguistics: Moore is upset because Gupta’s piece said he “fudged facts.” In reality, Moore probably didn’t really “fudge” as much as selectively included statistics that bolstered his argument, and omitted facts that contradict or confuse his stance on the issues. CNN isn’t guilty of libel, per se; can you sue a TV network for an imprecisely worded voiceover?

Bloggers have almost unanimously*** taken the filmmaker’s side. “[N]o nonfiction filmmaker is scrutinized in the way that Moore is. Hell, no journalist is scrutinized the way Moore is (oh, but if they were),” writes A.J. Schnack. “If [Moore's] right about nothing else (and even if his appearance last night bordered on the wild-eyed, which I’m not saying it did), CNN has plenty to answer for.” Rachel Sklar is more blunt: “Does it compromise my journalistic objectivity to say that Dr. Sanjay Gupta is a dick?”

At this point, it seems as though CNN is just embarrassing themselves by letting Moore and Gupta argue in circles. It’s easy to peg Moore as the winner in all this–not only does he get the satisfaction of having made a major news organization look bad, but he gets hours worth of free publicity for his film–but the flip side to Moore\’s triumph is the agony that is watching CNN dig their own grave.

**UPDATE: It’s not all sunny skies in the blogosphere for Mr. Moore. When forced to choose which of the two great Satans to side with between CNN and Michael Moore, conservative bloggers are showing a surprising surfeit of sympathy for the cable news giant. “While I can agree that our media establishment does not always serve the public interest well, listening to Michael Moore rant and rave about them is rich,” writes Pam Meister. Allahpundit calls Moore a racist and accuses him of beating on an easy target; Libertas also plays the “Mike’s a bully” card–”For Moore to get in a battle of wits with Wolf Blitzer of all people

Michael Moore’s most recent documentary, Sicko, will premiere this Saturday at the Cannes Film Festival, and is scheduled for US release by Lionsgate on June 29. And suddenly, as if perfectly timed by the Weinstein Co. rather than the U.S. Treasury, Moore is being investigated for possibly violating America’s trade embargo with Cuba by going to the “forbidden” country to make a portion of his film. Cuba is even saying that Moore is a victim of censorship (read about it here). It doesn’t get much juicier than that.

In The Hollywood Reporter’s piece on the matter, “Healthy debate surrounds Moore’s docu ‘Sicko,’” has this to say about the publicity stunt:

Lionsgate and the Weinstein Co. are making the Treasury Department’s investigation a key focus of their “Sicko” campaign. The Weinstein Co. has hired David Boies, the chief attorney in Al Gore’s recount battle against George Bush in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, to help on the “Sicko” case. Chris Lehane, a political consultant on the film, said in an interview that TWC and Lionsgate would “go to the mattresses for this film and fight the Bush efforts in every way possible.”

On the anti-Moore side, News Corp. properties Fox News and the New York Post have run editorials and commentaries slamming the filmmaker.

While the Treasury Dept. triggered the current contretemps, “It’s Harvey (Weinstein) up to his old tricks, doing his Barnum & Bailey act,” said one prominent studio marketing executive. “It’s a textbook ‘create a controversy’ to rev up all the people who hate the government and bring attention to the movie, which is what film marketing is all about. A-plus to them.”

The funny thing is that, according to a press release about the film’s release date, Harvey Weinstein sees Sicko as “less controversial” than Fahrenheit 9-11.

“I’ve seen this movie with Republicans and Democrats, and this is one time Michael has sort of unified everyone,” [Weinstein] said. “The health care industry might not have a very good July Fourth.”

Here’s to so-called unification. We’ll have to see how that works out.