Katie Couric Lies via editing her "gun control" "documentary" (Read 8668 times)

punaperson

We get 20 or 40 or even 100 people to submit testimony on a bullshit bill to infringe our rights, while this propaganda from Couric will likely get millions of views by people otherwise ignorant on the topic, thus overwhelming our "activism" with mass media promulgation of deceitful lies.

The following is an email from Phillip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL). Permission is granted to use such in its entirety, as evidenced by the email's last line.

“Creative” editing by Katie Couric, who must have graduated from the Joseph Goebbels School of Journalism, has intentionally and significantly changed the response of VCDL members in a new video called “Under the Gun” - and I have PROOF.

VCDL APPROACHED TO BE PART OF A “DOCUMENTARY”

I received an email in March of 2015 from Kristin Lazure, a producer for Atlas Films, asking if VCDL would be part of "a documentary about the gun violence prevention movement in America.”

In the email, Kristin said, "Some of the storylines we're exploring include the legislative process on the federal and state level, how the Second Amendment has been interpreted in the wake of the Supreme Court's Heller ruling, and what impact mass shootings like Aurora and Sandy Hook have on gun reform legislation.” She continued, "In order to fully understand the complexities of this hot button topic and speak to an audience with varied viewpoints, Ms. Couric is very eager to include all perspectives in this discussion."

As is VCDL’s general policy with the media, we do our best to accommodate their requests, as it gives us a chance to get our message out to the public. It is a policy that has worked well for as long as VCDL has been around, with the exception of four times, and this was to be one of those exceptions.

Katie’s team was set up to film in Washington, DC, and Kristin wanted to know if I could come there for the interview. I said that I would not come to DC, so they rented a conference room in a hotel in Northern Virginia and brought down their crew for what ended up being a two hour interview with Katie on April 13, 2015. (The audio of the raw interview is below).

Later, Dennis O’Connor and I took Katie and her crew to Blue Ridge Arsenal to film Katie learning how to shoot on May 11, 2015. While there, she also interviewed Dennis.

GROUP INTERVIEW

Later, Kristin contacted me about arranging an interview of a group of VCDL members.

The group interview was held in the room where VCDL meetings are held and ended just as VCDL members were coming in for the regularly scheduled Annandale membership meeting on June 18, 2015.

Participating in the group session were Ed Levine, Patricia Webb, Terrell Prude’, Dan Hawes, Leonard Harris, John Wilburn, Rubiner Toor, Barak Ulrich James, and Judy Rudek.


THE “DOCUMENTARY” TURNS OUT TO BE AN “INFOMERCIAL” FOR GUN CONTROL

While the movie claims to be a documentary, it's clear after watching it that it was never intended to be a balanced presentation of the issues.

People from other gun groups were also interviewed, but in the end the video dedicated a mere fifteen minutes or so to the pro-self-defense side (of which VCDL had only about four minutes), while giving an hour and a half to the antis.


CREATIVE EDITING BY KATIE COURIC CHANGES THE VCDL GROUP’S ANSWER TO A KEY QUESTION

Katie apparently wasn’t getting anything from either the group or me that she could use to further her pro-gun-control arguments. In fact my entire two-hour interview was left on the cutting room floor, but some of the group interview made it into the final film. However, one of the question/answer responses was altered - and therein lies the problem.

Watching the video, you hear Katie ask, “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorist from walking into, say, a licensed gun dealer and purchasing a gun?” The camera then shows the group members TOTALLY SILENT FOR EIGHT SECONDS. The camera zooms in on one member, who looks down.

The clear implication is that none of the group had an answer for that question and was being evasive and avoiding eye contact.

The truth is, and as you will hear in the audio, below, that the group responded to Katie immediately, with answers to her question! Yet the video shows no one responding. Clearly, when Katie didn't get the answer(s) she wanted, she changed the group’s answers by replacing them with other video of the group sitting around quietly between questions.

Unbelievable. And extremely unprofessional. In essence Katie lied about the VCDL members' answers. If she so cavalierly lied in this instance, what other things did she alter in this movie or any of her previous reporting to advance her own personal agendas?

While I am used to our side being given less time in the press than the antis are given, I’m not used to having our words changed. That is a big journalistic “no no.”

Back in 1993, Dateline faked an accidental explosion of a truck to show that model truck was dangerous if involved in a collision. Dateline couldn’t actually create an explosion by crashing vehicles into the truck, so they ultimately, and shamefully, planted incendiary devices on the truck to force it to blow up.

What Katie did is similar.

Speaking of cheerleading for gun control, at the end of the infomercial the names of eight anti-self-defense groups that participated in the project are prominently listed under the title of "Join Those Already Making a Difference," with viewers encouraged to contact them for more information. Not one single pro-self-defense group, including VCDL, is listed as a source of information.

The audio of the full group interview is here, skip to the 36 minute and 43 second mark to hear the question on felons and the answers the group provided. There is no silence, but Katie needed something to show gun owners are unreasonable in their opposition to universal background checks, so she provided eight seconds of silence for us:http://vcdl.org:80/resources/Media/k...ew06182015.mp3

Feel free to listen to the entire interview. I think the group did a phenomenal job defending our gun rights and that’s why the group doesn’t appear in the infomercial but for a few minutes, with a key part edited to serve a gun-control agenda.

You can watch Katie Curic's gun control infomercial for free at: http://www.epix.com/movie/under-the-gun/

(The Epix web site for the movie says "with a narration from renowned journalist Katie Couric". Renowned for what? Lying?)

As an FYI, my full interview (raw) can be heard here: http://vcdl.org:80/resources/Media/PVCInterview_1.mp3

POST THIS FAR AND WIDE TO GET THE WORD OUT ABOUT KATIE’S PHONY “DOCUMENTARY” CALLED “UNDER THE GUN”

passivekinetic

Re: Katie Couric Lies via editing her "gun control" "documentary"
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2016, 09:31:12 PM »
Quote
Though the NYC installation has special significance -- considering the UN's PEACE-keeping mandate and Lennon's local demise -- there are at least 16 other identical Knotted Gun sculptures scattered across the planet, in venues ranging from a World War II Museum in Caen, France, to a shopping center in Liverpool, England.

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/26878
"The sheep fear sheepdogs, because they fail to see the wolves."
- Anonymous

punaperson

Re: Katie Couric Lies via editing her "gun control" "documentary"
« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2016, 09:33:03 PM »
Wow. Even the far leftist Washington Post lambasts Couric's editing as completely deceptive and unethical. You know it's really really really bad when Pravda on the Potomac sides with gun owners/carry rights activists!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/05/25/audiotape-katie-couric-documentary-falsely-depicts-gun-supporters-as-idiots/

Audiotape: Katie Couric documentary falsely depicts gun supporters as ‘idiots’

Here the Erik Wemple Blog stroke our gray beard and reflect: In the years we’ve covered and watched media organizations, we’ve scarcely seen a thinner, more weaselly excuse than the one in the block above. For starters, it appears to count as an admission that this segment of the documentary was edited. The artistic “pause” provides the viewer not a “moment to consider this important question”; it provides viewers a moment to lower their estimation of gun owners. That’s it. As far as the rest of the statement, adults in 2016 may no longer write the phrase “apologize if anyone felt that way” and preserve their standing as professionals.

Many of those who sampled the discrepancy between the video and the audiotape were already enraged by the depiction of these gun owners. The statements from Soechtig and Couric will surely intensify the backlash, as well they should. An apology, retraction, re-editing, whatever it is that filmmakers do to make amends — all of it needs to happen here.

Read more details about this particular distortion/falsehood on the Virginia Citizens Defense League facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/VCDL.ORG/

passivekinetic

Re: Katie Couric Lies via editing her "gun control" "documentary"
« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2016, 10:42:32 PM »
This has become TRENDING on Facebook.

I guess Facebook now has to grudgingly "allow" this news item to be shown, after recently being called to the carpet.

Wonder how long that lasts until they weasel back toward censoring conservative info again.
"The sheep fear sheepdogs, because they fail to see the wolves."
- Anonymous

punaperson

Re: Katie Couric Lies via editing her "gun control" "documentary"
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2016, 06:58:34 AM »
This has become TRENDING on Facebook.

I guess Facebook now has to grudgingly "allow" this news item to be shown, after recently being called to the carpet.

Wonder how long that lasts until they weasel back toward censoring conservative info again.
Every member of Facebook is putting dollars into the pocket of Zuckerberg to help him enact his agenda, and you certainly know that that agenda will not have a pleasant outcome for Second Amendment rights advocates nor people with generally "conservative" or "libertarian" values.

As a private business Facebook can enact any policies they want about anything having to do with their business and how it operates, including censoring any viewpoint or prohibiting any language or ideas or comments or advertisements (such as for firearms). As a consumer, you have total freedom to avoid contributing to their bottom line.

punaperson

Re: Katie Couric Lies via editing her "gun control" "documentary"
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2016, 07:06:42 AM »
Here's a comment from one of the participants ("Cowboy T" on the calguns forums) in the "discussion" that Couric's team edited. Had the VCDL not taped the event, based upon their prior experience of media editing events to appear other than they really were, Couric could have simply denied their claims about the event. Hit piece of lies and distortions, as usual, but it's still interesting to me to hear the details. Just gives us a clearer picture of what we are up against and provides information as to how to go about attempting to overcome the overwhelming advantage they have over us attempting to "inform" the public at large.
* * * *

Here's a very shortened, first-hand account of that event.

I know for a fact that she committed fraud...because I was part of that panel! That's right, I was there--live, not Memorex. :-) After Katie heard the story of my Dad (this was very early on in the panel interview), she did everything she could to try to avoid me from that point forward, but it wasn't happening. Her growing distaste for me for simply for stating the facts was obvious and, I might say, telling about her so-called "unbiased journalism" claims.

I also met her producer. Couric and her producer looked like they'd probably been working together for a long time and are likely good friends as well. Therefore, whatever her producer did, Couric herself had to know about. They were discussing things back 'n' forth almost like they were best friends, as happens a lot with people who work together for a long time. Katie's crew wasn't huge, maybe 4 or 5 people.

There was one time where Katie actually seriously implied that it's preferable to get cut up with a knife than get shot by a gun. For me, obviously, that's kinda personal. Thus my immediate reaction: "are you SERIOUS??!" Man, I was about to totally dissect what she had just said, given my Dad's experience. Turns out another VCDL member smoothly chimed in and did so from a different, equally effective, angle...perhaps fortunately.

The panel had a lot of very good answers to her political statements phrased as questions. She was looking for any sort of "gotcha" that she could use. She got nothing, folks. NOTHING. And that's why she pulled this "creative editing" business. I am reminded of the hack-job that MSLSD did with that pro-2A Black man with the AR-15 slung over his back, about 6-7 years ago in 2009. You all remember that one? This was the "white people with guns" claim where MSLSD did more "creative editing" of the footage to hide the fact that the man carrying that AR-15 is a dark-skinned Black man. Can't mix actual facts with propaganda, now, can ya?

I consider what Katie did here in the same vein. It's yellow journalism, because what she (and MSLSD) both presented is NOT what ACTUALLY happened.

There's more. She repeatedly cut off other VCDL members who didn't give her the sound-bites that she was clearly looking for. Now, most of us hadn't been interviewed by someone like her before, so they were trying to be polite and they stopped when she cut 'em off. I emphasize: the VCDL members WERE POLITE to her, and SHE WAS RUDE to us. One guy she clearly knew better than to try that stunt with is an attorney named Daniel Hawes, Esq. He took her apart from a legal, Constitutional perspective. The destruction of her pseudologic by Daniel was just beautiful to behold.

Here's a great little tidbit: we actually got her to admit that, given the choice of an unarmed guard vs. an armed one to protect *her*, she'd rather have the armed guard! Yes, we got her to admit this! Now, of course, she tried to qualify it, but bottom line, she prefers guns protecting her vs. no guns protecting her. Just like so many other antis, eh? Oh, and it was another Black man, a professional security guard, who nailed her to the cross on this point. It, too, was beautiful.

Conclusion: Katie Couric is a hypocrite, a political activist, and now we know thanks to the VCDL, apparently a lying fraud as well. Unfortunately, like Bloom-boy, she's wealthy and has a wide-reaching megaphone to spew her propaganda.

oldfart

Re: Katie Couric Lies via editing her "gun control" "documentary"
« Reply #6 on: May 26, 2016, 08:19:05 AM »
Grade school kids are learning how to manipulate photos and edit video today..
Which is why I repeat this often:
"Keep your crap detector turned on"

It's so easy to be fooled by multimedia now days.
The old adage "One picture is worth a thousand words" was totally blown out of the water when Adobe Photoshop came along.
Now new software enables video manipulation in real time so you can't even believe a video of someone making a statement.


What, Me Worry?

Jl808

Katie Couric responds to deceptive editing charges in gun documentary. Enjoy!

I think, therefore I am armed.
NRA Life Patron member, HRA Life member, HiFiCo Life Member, HDF member

The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.

oldfart

Re: Katie Couric Lies via editing her "gun control" "documentary"
« Reply #8 on: May 26, 2016, 10:44:01 AM »
Excellent  :thumbsup:
What, Me Worry?

HiCarry

Re: Katie Couric Lies via editing her "gun control" "documentary"
« Reply #9 on: May 26, 2016, 01:49:00 PM »
Too bad folks that were interviewed by Matt Levy for his thinly disguised local hit piece didn't audio record their interviews...

passivekinetic

Katie Couric responds to deceptive editing charges in gun documentary. Enjoy!



That right there is absolutely awesome, I hope it becomes a meme and they make more edits like this. That will totally destroy the mainstream media's aura of credibility.
"The sheep fear sheepdogs, because they fail to see the wolves."
- Anonymous

punaperson

Re: Katie Couric Lies via editing her "gun control" "documentary"
« Reply #11 on: May 26, 2016, 02:07:16 PM »
That Couric interview edit by Reason is great, but those damn libertarians are too polite. I'm still hoping for a version that's a lot more low down and dirty.

Note this article from John Lott ("More Guns, Less Crime", etc.). He must have parsed his words, pauses, and facial expressions very carefully for them to find no way to distort his FOUR HOURS of interview into even a single deceptive sound bite.

http://crimeresearch.org/2016/05/katie-couric-spent-almost-4-hours-interviewing-john-lott-on-film-for-her-new-gun-control-movie-but-didnt-include-any-of-lotts-interview-in-the-movie/

KATIE COURIC SPENT ALMOST 4 HOURS INTERVIEWING JOHN LOTT ON FILM FOR HER NEW GUN-CONTROL MOVIE BUT DIDN’T INCLUDE ANY OF LOTT’S INTERVIEW IN THE MOVIE

Excerpt:

After over two hours of pre-interviews with Kristin Lazure, a Producer at Atlas Films, I was asked to travel to New York City to do an interview with Katie Couric for her new movie.  As Kristin put it on July 14, 2015: “we are still very much interested in interviewing you to give the film greater balance.”  During the pre-interviews, multiple times Kristin told me how much she appreciated my research and how important it was.  Our interview in New York City was only supposed to last an hour, but ended up lasting almost 4 hours.  Yet, none of the interview that I did was included in the movie.

passivekinetic

Re: Katie Couric Lies via editing her "gun control" "documentary"
« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2016, 02:52:20 PM »
Totally agree. They need to edit a Feinstein video telling people to buy more guns because guns reduce crime!

And a Clinton video telling people to vote Trump because she is guilty of breaching national security.

But they need to do it subtle, like they do on the news!, rather than be too obvious like this Couric parody video.
"The sheep fear sheepdogs, because they fail to see the wolves."
- Anonymous

passivekinetic

Re: Katie Couric Lies via editing her "gun control" "documentary"
« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2016, 03:00:30 PM »


Better audio than the video on his website.
"The sheep fear sheepdogs, because they fail to see the wolves."
- Anonymous

passivekinetic

Re: Katie Couric Lies via editing her "gun control" "documentary"
« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2016, 03:03:57 PM »
Fox New coverage

"The sheep fear sheepdogs, because they fail to see the wolves."
- Anonymous

230RN

Re: Katie Couric Lies via editing her "gun control" "documentary"
« Reply #15 on: May 29, 2016, 06:57:03 AM »
Oh, and Wiki has "locked" her Wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Couric


Quote
This article is currently protected from editing until June 2, 2016.
 See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask an administrator to make an edit if it is uncontroversial or supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected.

Interesting.

I wonder what they mean by "uncontroversial OR supported by consensus."

Consensus of the hyperleftist anti-2a community, or our consensus?

I can't wait 'til June 3rd.

I find it unbelieveable that any producer or director would allow 8 or 9 seconds of pure "dead air" in a documentary without having an axe to grind.  That bullshit "excuse" about allowing the audience to ponder the question reminds me of a cat scratching to cover poop in the litter box.

Terry, 230RN
« Last Edit: May 29, 2016, 07:06:04 AM by 230RN »
I do believe that the radical and crazy notion that the Founders meant what they said, is gradually soaking through the judicial system.

punaperson

Re: Katie Couric Lies via editing her "gun control" "documentary"
« Reply #16 on: May 29, 2016, 11:54:05 AM »
That "response" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Katie_Couric#top) to the proposed Wikipedia edits of the Couric article reads like something her lawyer would have written. First there are all kinds of "technical" objections (can't use urls in certain forms, etc.), but mostly the objections are almost legal boilerplate about what constitutes a "reliable source", with all kinds of snide comments by the "protector" about how just because Couric was the executive producer and narrator that she was in no way responsible for the actual editing and/or content of the video, unless you can find a "reliable source" where Couric herself (apparently the only "reliable source") says that she had some such responsibility. What a joke! But not surprising. I'm sure the same standards are applied to the Wikipedia entries of any and all "conservative" individuals. Sure they are. (Among the criticisms of Couric's role in the "documentary" rejected as not "reliable sources" by the Wikipedia "protector" are the New York Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, NPR, and CNN, certainly all of them cheerleaders for the Leftists/Progressives.)

For example, I have many problems with policy positions and values of Dinesh D'Souza, but here are some quotes from his Wikipedia entry:

Re D'Souza's film "Obama's America": "The film has been criticized on the grounds that what D'Souza claims to be an investigation of Obama includes considerable projection and speculation and selective borrowing from Obama's autobiography to prove his own psychobiography.[72][73] The Obama administration described the film as "an insidious attempt to dishonestly smear the president".[74]"

So Wikipedia won't allow the New York Times nor the Washington Post to be quoted about Cuoric's film, but they allow the friggin' Whitehouse to be quoted against another documentarian laying out biographhical information about the current resident? Yeah, that makes sense.

Here's more (On D'Souza's "America: Imagine the World Without Her") :"The film review website Metacritic surveyed 11 movie critics and assessed 10 reviews as negative and 1 as mixed, with none being positive. It gave an aggregate score of 15 out of 100, which indicates "overwhelming dislike".[83] The similar website Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 24 critics and, categorizing the reviews as positive or negative, assessed 22 as negative and 2 as positive. Of the 24 reviews, it determined an average rating of 2.9 out of 10. The website gave the film an overall score of 8% and said of the consensus, "Passionate but poorly constructed, America preaches to the choir."[84] The Hollywood Reporter's Paul Bond said the film performed well in its limited theatrical release, "overcoming several negative reviews in the mainstream media".[85] USA Today's Bryan Alexander said, "America was savaged by mainstream critics... It received an 8% critical score on RottenTomatoes.com... "

Etc., etc., etc.

So much for Wikipedia and anything resembling journalism or equal standards applied equally. What a joke! I guess I already said that...  :crazy:



 
« Last Edit: May 29, 2016, 02:14:41 PM by punaperson »

230RN

Re: Katie Couric Lies via editing her "gun control" "documentary"
« Reply #17 on: May 29, 2016, 12:44:35 PM »
^
Wow, I never got into the Wiki edit or talk sections before.  Sounds like they're debating the debate-debating.  You're right, it does resemble lawyer-speak.


Looks like[citation needed] the hyperleftists[citation needed] are circling the wagons[citation needed] to defend[citation needed] an indefensible position[citation needed].

Terry[citation needed], 230RN[citation needed]
« Last Edit: May 29, 2016, 12:56:10 PM by 230RN »
I do believe that the radical and crazy notion that the Founders meant what they said, is gradually soaking through the judicial system.

punaperson

Re: Katie Couric Lies via editing her "gun control" "documentary"
« Reply #18 on: May 31, 2016, 06:24:14 AM »
So now I have to wonder about what the "protector" of the uneditable Katie Couric Wikipedia page will do, as Couric herself has taken responsibility for the "edit" that fraudulently misrepresents what happened in the interview with the VCDL members. Is Couric herself sufficiently a "reliable source" to allow the incident to be reported on the Wikipedia page. Previously the director of the "documentary" had taken responsibility, so the "protector" said it had nothing to do with Couric, even though Couric was the narrator, and conducted the interview (thus knowing that it was edited to misrepresent what actually happened), and was executive producer and would clearly have seen the video in its misrepresentative form. So now we have "proof", from Couric herself, so I wonder what the Wikipedia response will be... though the person attempting to post this issue to her page had seemed to give up and bid adieu to the whole thing after being rebuffed by the multiple absurd arguments of the "protector".

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/30/media/katie-couric-under-the-gun-doc/index.html

"I take responsibility for a decision that misrepresented an exchange I had with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League," Couric said in a statement on Monday night.

[Of course she goes on to say, essentially, "What difference, at this point, does it really make?", and that the goal of dealing with "gun violence" (aka "ending gun ownership by law-abiding citizens") is served by the "documentary".]

Good read by/about members of VCDL and the incident with Couric:

http://www.gadsdengunsblog.com/gungate-katie-couric-alters-vcdl-responses-documentary/

Couric's full statement:

http://underthegunmovie.com/message-from-katie
« Last Edit: May 31, 2016, 06:40:26 AM by punaperson »

230RN

Re: Katie Couric Lies via editing her "gun control" "documentary"
« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2016, 05:50:27 AM »
Yeah, I wonder how they're going to get around the "reliable source" to prove lying when the reliable source herself is an admitted liar.  What a condom.  Oops, I mean conundrum.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive !

This is one of the most quoted excerpts from Scottish poetry, and appears in Sir Walter Scott's epic poem "Marmion."  I hope to see it quoted some more in reference to Ms. Katie Couric's baldfaced lies.

But I'm in a charitable mood today, so I'm sure that within her own conscience, she lied for what she considered a "good cause."  After all, the end justifies the means, right?

Riiiiight.  :grrr:

Terry, 230RN

« Last Edit: June 02, 2016, 06:04:35 AM by 230RN »
I do believe that the radical and crazy notion that the Founders meant what they said, is gradually soaking through the judicial system.