News that the Obama administration has tapped CNN reporter Dr. Sanjay Gupta to fill the post of U.S. Surgeon General is drawing some criticism this week.  

While some believe the appointment will be good for the American public, others wonder if, as one commenter on the NYTimes.com blog puts it, the selection of the high-profile neurosurgeon is simply a choice of “style over substance.”

On the one hand, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, many healthcare officials believe that appointing someone like Gupta “would highlight the importance of health communication in an era when health care is a major issue around the world”

But others, like Gerard M. Farrell, executive director of the Commissioned Officers Association of the Public Health Service, express concern over the choice of someone who wasn’t already a commissioned health officer.  

“The best way to find a good leader and to depoliticize the office,” he told NYTimes.com, “is to do what the military does: you pick leaders from within the service.”

The guy’s definitely got a point. And for the most part, I agree with that stance.  But then, it also seems that having an immediately recognizable – and already trusted – figure as the “country’s doctor” would go a long way in really helping America connect with this official and respect their leadership, no? 

Now, of course, I’m curious as to what your thoughts are:  Should Dr. Gupta’s celebrity and potential to bring national attention to what many believe are all-too-often overlooked or ignored health issues trump what he may lack in government experience? Or would the position be better filled by someone from the inside ranks?

Or…do you take the stance of CNN blogger Paul Krugman, who remarks here that consideration of Gupta’s appointment shouldn’t be based on qualifications, experience, etc; but rather the “lack of accountability” he exhibited earlier this year when he inaccurately (and unapologetically, according to Krugman) accused Michael Moore of “fudging facts” in the film Sicko?