[Verbal101]

Katie Couric lied through deceptive editing

File under S for same old garbage.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/audio-shows-katie-couric-gun-documentary-deceptively-edited-interview-pro-gun-activists/

The edited video makes the gun rights activists look clueless. The raw audio tells a different story. But the channel airing this deceptive hit piece "stands behind" the "creative editorial judgement".

 

[jsaund22]

 

[phantoms]

The director of a new documentary about gun violence says she is sorry for a misleading scene that makes gun rights activists seem stumped by one of interviewer Katie Couric's questions.

Make no mistake, this edit was intentional. Full story at:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/25/med...tephanie-soechtig/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom

 

[RedDawnTheMusical]

Big surprise (not).

 

[jsaund22]

http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/showthread.php?t=269667

 

[Taurus92]

Make no mistake, this edit was intentional. Full story at:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/25/med...tephanie-soechtig/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom

Yep, and cnn just gave them some more free media coverage without mentioning how much of the opposing interviews were intentionally not shown. They only focus on the completely not accidental editing and the BS answer. They (cnn) did make it clear the intention of the edit was to imply an embarrassed group without answers and that that was clearly not the case. :applause:

 

[phaed]

believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see

 

[Rugerer]

Epix - a television network and streaming service - said that it "stands behind Katie Couric, director Stephanie Soechtig, and their creative and editorial judgment. We encourage people to watch the film and decide for themselves."

Doesn't sound like an apology to me. What's this "apology" stuff??

They're just glad of the click-bait.

 

[gunsmoker]

I don't understand Couric's question.
Was she asking why we shouldn't have more background checks (private party in-state sales), or is she addressing the gun rights pie-in-the-sky advocacy for repealing the Brady background check law and all other point-of-sale screening of gun buyers?

If it's the latter, it IS a difficult question to answer.
If not by showing ID and doing background checks, then HOW would you stop crazies (documented as insane) and convicted felons from buying guns at gun stores and pawn shops and sporting goods stores anywhere?

 

[Rugerer]

If it's the latter, it IS a difficult question to answer.

Except that group had instant answers, and they EDITED THE TAPE to make it look like they didn't know how to answer.

I think they asked that question hoping they'd flummox the group, and when they didn't, they went with editing in what they wanted.

There's no point to discussing deeper philosophical points if the other side is being dishonest.

 

[Verbal101]

Creative editing has been around a while...

 

[Taurus92]

I don't understand Couric's question.
Was she asking why we shouldn't have more background checks (private party in-state sales), or is she addressing the gun rights pie-in-the-sky advocacy for repealing the Brady background check law and all other point-of-sale screening of gun buyers?

If it's the latter, it IS a difficult question to answer.
If not by showing ID and doing background checks, then HOW would you stop crazies (documented as insane) and convicted felons from buying guns at gun stores and pawn shops and sporting goods stores anywhere?

Not really difficult to answer and it doesn't matter which question. Just as many or more criminals have guns today as before the "Brady background check law" went into effect.

We wouldn't want the insane getting a gun because with a gun, they would go crazy? Why are insane people out walking about and not getting help?

I really don't understand the thinking behind allowing dangerous people to walk the street as long as they are currently unarmed. If they are that dangerous then they are that dangerous, with or without a specific type of weapon. Thinking otherwise could lead some to conclude if we just outlawed all guns, we could do away with prisons, and murderers and rapists could live in harmony next door to Katie Couric. Someone should ask her how that works.

Needing to punish everyone because we intentionally push dangerous people into society sounds like a conspiracy. If our corrections system is broken, let's focus on that problem.

 

[phantoms]

believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see

Ingrained in me from an early age. But perhaps now days it should be barely anything you see.

 

[mountainpass]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/katie-couric-under-the-gun_us_5747245de4b0dacf7ad42f59

Let us begin with a stipulation: Documentaries, no matter how artful their sheen of objectivity is, are by their very nature biased. And that's okay. We accept that documentary features obtain their relevance because of a singular editorial focus: an argument that must be heard by someone who feels powerfully obliged to make that argument.

We can live with this because documentary artists promise us something in return: toughness.

It's pretty clear that "Under The Gun" - the Katie Couric executive-produced film that seeks to "[examine] the events and people who have kept the gun debate fierce and the progress slow" - has failed the test of toughness. This is pretty bad news for people who feel that the gun debate has been fierce and the progress slow!

The end result here is a documentary that does a great disservice to its audience, arming viewers with the false assurance that a tough question didn't receive an answer, when in fact it did. This film's audience has been denied the opportunity to wrestle with those answers - a promise the film explicitly makes when it shows Couric engaging with the members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League in the first place. The filmmakers' weaknesses have been thus passed along to their viewers.

If you invite an argument, contend with the argument. The end.

 

[68908]

Typical of these collectivist

 

[68908]

Not really difficult to answer and it doesn't matter which question. Just as many or more criminals have guns today as before the "Brady background check law" went into effect.

We wouldn't want the insane getting a gun because with a gun, they would go crazy? Why are insane people out walking about and not getting help?

I really don't understand the thinking behind allowing dangerous people to walk the street as long as they are currently unarmed. If they are that dangerous then they are that dangerous, with or without a specific type of weapon. Thinking otherwise could lead some to conclude if we just outlawed all guns, we could do away with prisons, and murderers and rapists could live in harmony next door to Katie Couric. Someone should ask her how that works.

Needing to punish everyone because we intentionally push dangerous people into society sounds like a conspiracy. If our corrections system is broken, let's focus on that problem.

This has always been my contention, that if a mentally ill person or dangerous felon is walking around with the rest of us, but they are too insane or dangerous to be carrying a firearm, what exactly are they doing our here with the rest of us in the first place? Either a man has all his rights or he's incarcerated, no in between.

 

[Nemo]

HuffPo giving Couric a spanking. Thats a monster size surprise itself.

Nemo

 

[Taurus92]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/katie-couric-under-the-gun_us_5747245de4b0dacf7ad42f59

So, because it's known that gun documentaries are biased towards gun control, they chastise Couric because she didn't lie enough? :shock:

Well I'm not really that shocked, but for them to actually put in writing that she wasn't biased enough is pretty funny and also pretty sad at the same time.

 

[68908]

This is what collectivist do, they lie, they have to, its the only way these crazy plans get implementated. Social Marxist, economic Marxist, socialist, communist its all they do.

Gun control is all about the absolute control of the population, up and to disappearing dissidents, murdering them, gulag, whatever. That's all it is. They want that power.

You see how bad it is now, how bad they treat us when we do have guns, imagine how bad it will be when we don't have them legally.

They have to sell fear to take away the guns, and they will chip away at the with every little law they can pass until they can initiate confiscation, same way so many have done it in the past. Read and know your history folks.

 

[mountainpass]

An "AP Big Story"

http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/...couric-takes-blame-misleading-gun-documentary

WASHINGTON (AP) - Katie Couric has reversed course and taken responsibility for an edit that misrepresents the response of gun rights activists to a question she poses in a new documentary.