Katie Couric Anti-Gun Doc. Misleading Edit

[BarryLee]

Ok, no real surprise here as Ms. Couric is very anti-gun and made the documentary not to “have a conversation” but to push her agenda. However, even many who agree with her position are criticizing her methods. For instance in one scene she ask a group of gun rights advocates how you stop felons from getting guns without background checks. In the film the rights advocates appear stumped staring and the floor during a prolonged period of silence. However, in reality people chimed in right away with responses. Now, Ms Couric’s producer have sort of apologized saying, “My intention was to provide a pause for the viewer to have a moment to consider this important question before presenting the facts on Americans' opinions on background checks. I never intended to make anyone look bad and I apologize if anyone felt that way”. Ms. Couric offered her support stating, “I support Stephanie's statement and am very proud of this film”.

I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised to see this misleading propaganda from Ms. Couric, but sometimes the deception seems to cross the line and apparently some other journalist agree. NPR’s Daivid Folenflick said, “This manipulation — and that's what it was — would not pass muster at NPR under its principles for fairness in handling interviews”.

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/26/479655743/manipulative-editing-reflects-poorly-on-couric-and-her-gun-documentary

 

[Chaz88]

I saw that on the news today. It was obviously edited to make the respondents look bad. But on the other hand, the actual responses were not all that great.

 

[pappa]

I have never liked her. Her fake overdone "sweetness" reminds me of a sneak.
It is a favorite deceptive ploy of the zero- integrity, but "politically correct Nazis", to stage a "fair" interview with "opposing viewpoints". Using anti-2A people for both. The supposed pro-gun people being posers.
Don't know how many of you have noticed, but since Obama has been in, we periodically get teams of anti-2A trolls conducting themselves either stupidly, half unhinged nuts, or some other deceptive team charade.
Some joined our forums 5 or 6 years ago, and if you watch their posts they reveal themselves as trolls. One, seemingly respected on another forum, replied to me on Bloombergs anti-gun rights activities as follows: (paraphrased, not ver batim) Bloomberg does not run the action committees he funds. She (he named the woman) runs that particular improve America group. You cannot blame Bloomberg for anything they do you do not like. The troll further has two others , always same two, who slide in to play to his charade.
I guess it's part of zealots behavior to believe they are entitled and justified to lie, deceive, and invent "facts". I think some have themselves been deceived by segments of our society who simply want dictatorial powers eventually. Pat

 

[BarryLee]

I’m not sure there’s any assertion that the gun-rights people were fakes, but as Chaz88 noted we could have selected better representatives. I would love to see a nationally carried debate between a group of anti-gun experts and second amendment experts. I would hope this would include attorneys, NRA representatives and industry veterans. However, I doubt we’ll ever see this since the anti-gun folks don’t want sophisticated representatives of the other side to appear on mass media. One of their greatest tools is to portray gun owners as less educated, racist, fearful and outside of the main stream.

 

[kilimanjaro]

The major networks will never, never, ever present a fair and balanced program on guns in America. Their intent from the concept stage to final edit was always to promote the anti-gun agenda, no matter what pains they took to make it look like they weren't.

 

[BarryLee]

While I do believe many journalist enter the Second Amendment debate with their minds made up I wonder if it’s because they evaluated the evidence and reached that conclusion or they just accepted what they were told. Might a legitimate substantive debate change some of their minds? Maybe?

 

[zukiphile]

NPR’s David Folenflick said, “This manipulation — and that's what it was — would not pass muster at NPR under its principles for fairness in handling interviews”.

With due regard to David Folkenflik, NPRs history doesn't pass the standards he cites either.

"My intention was to provide a pause for the viewer to have a moment to consider this important question before presenting the facts on Americans' opinions on background checks. I never intended to make anyone look bad and I apologize if anyone felt that way."

Miss Soechtig's excuse is so transparently and abundantly false that the excuse ends up indicting her as much as the original deception. "f anyone felt that way" isn't an honest restatement of the issue; people object to the deception, not their feelings about the deception.

That's an insult, not an apology.

Couric has been appalling in the past as well, but the episode is still illustrative.

 

[Tom Servo]

Rush Limbaugh was all over this yesterday, and I'm very pleasantly surprised to see the mainstream media pick it up. That simply would not have happened in the 1990's, and it says a great deal about our standing in the general culture these days.

The fact that NPR is covering the matter is particularly interesting. They tend to lean a bit more to the progressive side of things, but they are widely seen as being a beacon of credibility. If they're on this, a whole new audience is being shown the dishonesty of the gun-control lobby.

 

[Skans]

While I do believe many journalist enter the Second Amendment debate with their minds made up I wonder if it’s because they evaluated the evidence and reached that conclusion or they just accepted what they were told. Might a legitimate substantive debate change some of their minds? Maybe?

I think you're overthinking this. Most national journalists live in New York City or Washington DC. Guns are simply foreign to most of them. It is more a symptom of them being out of touch with the rest of the country than anything else.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I’m not sure there’s any assertion that the gun-rights people were fakes, ...

In explaining why they used NOTHING from a 4-hour interview with John Lott, they explained that they had also interviewed a former lobbyist for the NRA and they felt (there's that word again) that adequately covered the pro-gun side. What they failed to point out is that the former NRA lobbyist happens to have switched sides, and does not in any way represent the pro-gun, pro-2A, pro-RKBA side at all.

 

[JWT]

Comments from the producer clearly indicate the feel they did nothing wrong or deceptive. To be expected....

 

[TXAZ]

It's too bad "journalist" have virtually no liability.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Comments from the producer clearly indicate the feel they did nothing wrong or deceptive. To be expected....

I would offer a slight correction: they don't admit to having done anything wrong. They know very well what they did, and why they did it. And they know full well how wrong it was.

 

[Pilot]

As others have said, this was purposeful lies, and deception to push an agenda.

 

[Tom Servo]

Comments from the producer clearly indicate the feel they did nothing wrong or deceptive.

Of course not. They're possessed of the notion they're doing noble work. If a few eggs get broken to make an omelet, so be it.

Just ask Shannon Watts why she won't go by her real name, or Michael Bloomberg why he committed several felony and RICO violations for the sake of suing a couple of gun dealers.

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

I'll have to make a donation to the VCDL's PAC in Couric's honor.

 

[Tom Servo]

In very similar news, Jim Sullivan consented to be interviewed by Bryant Gumbel on HBO, and they selectively edited his responses to make it seem he was decrying the very weapon he helped build.

(Sullivan was one of the designers of the AR-15, as well as the Stoner 63 and Ruger M77 rifles.)

There are two lessons to be taken from this. The first is that the gun-control lobby will sink to any level of dishonesty that suits their agenda. The second is that gun-rights supporters need to be really careful who they speak to in the press.

The only reason the VCDL folks had proof of Couric's dishonesty was that one of them was smart enough to make his own recording. Without that, Couric's handlers would have called him a liar and this wouldn't have made the news.

 

[rightside]

She wouldn't have got caught if she had realized the people she was videoing were recording her at the same time. Ain't that a bitch!

 

[Shenna9220]

She has issued an apology of sorts:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...-for-misleading-pause-in-gun-documentary.html

Not that this rights the wrong.

 

[kilimanjaro]

That was not an apology. 'I regret not making my concerns about the segment known at the time', is absolutely meaningless. She might now be saying 'We should have had five seconds of silence instead of ten', for all we know.

An apology would be on the order of 'We introduced our own agenda into the editing process to elicit audience reactions and inculcate our belief system into that of the viewer. This was unethical, wrong, and an insult to the intelligence of our viewers. Our network is taking action to ensure it does not happen again.'