Topic: Katie Couric Edited Pro-Gun Activists
Reply
no photo

SassyEuro2

Wed 05/25/16 09:11 PM

Audio Shows Katie Couric Documentary Deceptively Edited Interview with Pro-Gun Activists
Film's director: 'I never intended to make anyone look bad'




May 25, 2016

The makers of a new Katie Couric documentary on gun violence deceptively edited an interview between Couric and a group of gun rights activists in an apparent attempt to embarrass the activists, an audio recording of the full interview shows.

At the 21:48 mark of Under the Gun a scene of Katie Couric interviewing members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun rights organization, is shown.

Couric can be heard in the interview asking activists from the group, “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?”

The documentary then shows the activists sitting silently for nine awkward seconds, unable to provide an answer. It then cuts to the next scene. The moment can be watched here:

However, raw audio of the interview between Katie Couric and the activists provided to the Washington Free Beacon shows the scene was deceptively edited. Instead of silence, Couric’s question is met immediately with answers from the activists. A back and forth between a number of the league’s members and Couric over the issue of background checks proceeds for more than four minutes after the original question is asked.

Under the Gun bills itself as a documentary that “examines the events and people who have kept the gun debate fierce and the progress slow, even as gun deaths and mass shootings continue to increase.”

It follows a number of gun violence victims and those who have lost family members to gun violence as they advocate for stricter gun control laws. The 1 hour and 45 minute film was executive produced and narrated by Katie Couric.

Under the Gun has been labeled “dishonest politicking in the guise of media coverage,” “loose with the facts,” and “a full-length assault on guns and the Second Amendment” by those in the gun community since its debut on May 15.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League labeled the deceptively edited segment featured in the film “unbelievable and extremely unprofessional.” Philip Van Cleave, the organization’s president, said the editing was done deliberately to make it appear that league members didn’t have a response to Couric’s question.

“Katie Couric asked a key question during an interview of some members of our organization,” he said. “She then intentionally removed their answers and spliced in nine seconds of some prior video of our members sitting quietly and not responding. Viewers are left with the misunderstanding that the members had no answer to her question.”

Nora Ryan, the chief of staff for EPIX, the cable channel that is airing the documentary, told the Free Beacon in an email, “Under the Gun is a critically-acclaimed documentary that looks at the polarizing and politicized issue of gun violence, a subject that elicits strong reactions from people on both sides. EPIX stands behind Katie Couric, director Stephanie Soechtig, and their creative and editorial judgment. We encourage people to watch the film and decide for themselves.”

Requests for comment from Couric and the film’s director, Stephanie Soechtig, have not been returned, though they did speak to The Washington Post.

UPDATE 2:25 P.M.: This post has been updated with comment from a spokesperson for EPIX.

UPDATE 5:09 P.M.: The Washington Post‘s Erik Wemple tweeted a statement from Under the Gun’s director Stephanie Soechtig.

Got a statement from director Stephanie Soechtig regarding allegations of deceptive editing on Katie Couric gun doc. 1

— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) May 25, 2016

Soechtig: “There are a wide range of views expressed in the film. My intention was to provide a pause for the viewer….2

— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) May 25, 2016

…to have a moment to consider this important question before presenting the facts on Americans’ opinions on background checks.” 3

— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) May 25, 2016

“I never intended to make anyone look bad and I apologize if anyone felt that way.”

— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) May 25, 2016

UPDATE 5:36 P.M.: The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple also tweeted a statement from Katie Couric.

And statement from Katie Couric of "Under the Gun": "I support Stephanie's statement and am very proud of the film."

— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) May 25, 2016

http://freebeacon.com/issues/audio-shows-katie-couric-gun-documentary-deceptively-edited-interview-pro-gun-activists/
* Video, Audio & Embedded Links*
no photo

SassyEuro2

Wed 05/25/16 09:29 PM

Topic: Ex President Bill Clinton & "Orgy Island"

http://m.mingle2.com/topic/show/482521/

"Beyond the powerful couple, Epstein is linked to other well-known public figures such as former Clinton Press Secretary George Stephanopoulos, Britain’s Prince Andrew, TV personality Katie Couric, actor Kevin Spacey, and filmmaker Woody Allen."


what Kevin Spacey & KATIE COURIC?




think
no photo

ciretom

Wed 05/25/16 09:46 PM

Audio Shows Katie Couric Documentary Deceptively Edited Interview with Pro-Gun Activists

Next you're going to tell me Michael Moore's movies are also deceptively edited, Al Gore's was full of crap, and Disney staged the lemming scene in 1958.

How could Katie Couric do this that has never been done before!
Imagine documentarians having an agenda.
I hope it doesn't catch on.
Anarchy!
no photo

RebelArcher

Wed 05/25/16 10:32 PM


Audio Shows Katie Couric Documentary Deceptively Edited Interview with Pro-Gun Activists

Next you're going to tell me Michael Moore's movies are also deceptively edited, Al Gore's was full of crap, and Disney staged the lemming scene in 1958.

How could Katie Couric do this that has never been done before!
Imagine documentarians having an agenda.
I hope it doesn't catch on.
Anarchy!
You're so e-cool!
Sojourning_Soul's photo

Sojourning_Soul

Wed 05/25/16 11:01 PM


As in a court trial, statements made by a prosecutor can't be unheard even on command by a judge for the jury to disregard them.

The damage has been done. In this case on a national TV program that most won't view or hear any edits or retractions of.

Typical
Conrad_73's photo

Conrad_73

Thu 05/26/16 01:41 AM

Time for an Iron Broom!grumble
no photo

SassyEuro2

Thu 05/26/16 04:03 AM


Audio Shows Katie Couric Documentary Deceptively Edited Interview with Pro-Gun Activists

Next you're going to tell me Michael Moore's movies are also deceptively edited, Al Gore's was full of crap, and Disney staged the lemming scene in 1958.

How could Katie Couric do this that has never been done before!
Imagine documentarians having an agenda.
I hope it doesn't catch on.
Anarchy!


I am not telling you anything.
Did I connect some dots before you?
laugh

Sure documentaries have an addenda. So do her criminal & pervy & polical friends..

It is common knowledge that there are a disproportionate number of people in the media who are related to or have close ties with the White House.
Her connection to Bill Clinton is already known.
.
"You are who your friends are" &
"A man is known by the company he keeps "

Katie Couric has been keeping 'bad company'.
:
IgorFrankensteen's photo

IgorFrankensteen

Thu 05/26/16 04:16 AM

Greaat. It's wrong to alter stuff like that.

But did you listen to the real version? The "answers" those particular people came up with, weren't exactly brilliant, or even on point.

Couric asks how to keep guns away from known bad guys without any checks at all, and not one of the people who did rush to repeat the standard litany of pro-gun statements, said anything at all to actually answer the question asked.

One guy said felons should be allowed to by guns. Another went into a somewhat esoteric ramble about how "prior restraint" was unconstitutional (without showing that "prior restraint" applied to a situation where someone is already a known criminal or terrorist etc).

So yeah, it was inaccurate to show them sitting silently, but frankly, silence made them look a lot more thoughtful than their actual answers did.

What they did was still wrong, I would have posted the entire episode, and had a better debater than Couric there, to point out how nonsensical their actual reactions were.
IgorFrankensteen's photo

IgorFrankensteen

Thu 05/26/16 04:18 AM

Minor note of logic: by the reasoning these folks gave in the actual exchange, they would also intensely oppose Trumps idea to keep potential terrorists out of the country by defending the borders, and by building the wall, and by limiting Muslim foreigners.
mightymoe's photo

mightymoe

Thu 05/26/16 05:21 AM


Minor note of logic: by the reasoning these folks gave in the actual exchange, they would also intensely oppose Trumps idea to keep potential terrorists out of the country by defending the borders, and by building the wall, and by limiting Muslim foreigners.


blah, blah, blah... where's your proof?
IgorFrankensteen's photo

IgorFrankensteen

Thu 05/26/16 01:56 PM



Minor note of logic: by the reasoning these folks gave in the actual exchange, they would also intensely oppose Trumps idea to keep potential terrorists out of the country by defending the borders, and by building the wall, and by limiting Muslim foreigners.


blah, blah, blah... where's your proof?


I take it you have not yet availed yourself of the original unedited recording. That is my proof.
mightymoe's photo

mightymoe

Thu 05/26/16 02:10 PM




Minor note of logic: by the reasoning these folks gave in the actual exchange, they would also intensely oppose Trumps idea to keep potential terrorists out of the country by defending the borders, and by building the wall, and by limiting Muslim foreigners.


blah, blah, blah... where's your proof?


I take it you have not yet availed yourself of the original unedited recording. That is my proof.

so post it...
IgorFrankensteen's photo

IgorFrankensteen

Fri 05/27/16 12:02 PM





Minor note of logic: by the reasoning these folks gave in the actual exchange, they would also intensely oppose Trumps idea to keep potential terrorists out of the country by defending the borders, and by building the wall, and by limiting Muslim foreigners.


blah, blah, blah... where's your proof?


I take it you have not yet availed yourself of the original unedited recording. That is my proof.

so post it...


Again, you didn't do your own most basic homework.

IT IS PART OF THE ORIGINALLY POSTED LINK.
mightymoe's photo

mightymoe

Fri 05/27/16 12:04 PM






Minor note of logic: by the reasoning these folks gave in the actual exchange, they would also intensely oppose Trumps idea to keep potential terrorists out of the country by defending the borders, and by building the wall, and by limiting Muslim foreigners.


blah, blah, blah... where's your proof?


I take it you have not yet availed yourself of the original unedited recording. That is my proof.

so post it...


Again, you didn't do your own most basic homework.

IT IS PART OF THE ORIGINALLY POSTED LINK.


no its not...
Smartazzjohn's photo

Smartazzjohn

Fri 05/27/16 01:01 PM


Minor note of logic: by the reasoning these folks gave in the actual exchange, they would also intensely oppose Trumps idea to keep potential terrorists out of the country by defending the borders, and by building the wall, and by limiting Muslim foreigners.


MAJOR note of logic: The constitutional rights of LEGAL United States residents DON'T apply to those outside it's borders. Therefore supporting the call for the building of a wall to stop ILLEGAL entry and limiting entry to ANYONE who can't be vetted and who's identity can't be confirm are TOTALLY different from the issue of 2nd amendment rights of legal residents.
IgorFrankensteen's photo

IgorFrankensteen

Fri 05/27/16 10:16 PM







Minor note of logic: by the reasoning these folks gave in the actual exchange, they would also intensely oppose Trumps idea to keep potential terrorists out of the country by defending the borders, and by building the wall, and by limiting Muslim foreigners.


blah, blah, blah... where's your proof?


I take it you have not yet availed yourself of the original unedited recording. That is my proof.

so post it...


Just rechecked. It is. If you refuse to read everything, and fail to look past the headline, you might not see it, but it's there.



Again, you didn't do your own most basic homework.

IT IS PART OF THE ORIGINALLY POSTED LINK.


no its not...


Look again, only this time read more than the headline. About the third large picture down below the headline is the full unedited audio.
Edited by IgorFrankensteen on Fri 05/27/16 10:17 PM
Robxbox73's photo

Robxbox73

Sat 05/28/16 12:19 AM

https://soundcloud.com/washington-free-beacon
Robxbox73's photo

Robxbox73

Sat 05/28/16 12:23 AM

https://soundcloud.com/washington-free-beacon

I heard the responses. I don't agree with you. They did not sound uninformed. I don't belive we should surrender our rights, especially when the USGOV is out of control.
mightymoe's photo

mightymoe

Sat 05/28/16 06:51 AM








Minor note of logic: by the reasoning these folks gave in the actual exchange, they would also intensely oppose Trumps idea to keep potential terrorists out of the country by defending the borders, and by building the wall, and by limiting Muslim foreigners.


blah, blah, blah... where's your proof?


I take it you have not yet availed yourself of the original unedited recording. That is my proof.

so post it...


Just rechecked. It is. If you refuse to read everything, and fail to look past the headline, you might not see it, but it's there.



Again, you didn't do your own most basic homework.

IT IS PART OF THE ORIGINALLY POSTED LINK.


no its not...


Look again, only this time read more than the headline. About the third large picture down below the headline is the full unedited audio.


i have no clue as to what you're saying here... more liberal nonsense? is posting something against your liberal religion? it's not real hard, do you not know how?
IgorFrankensteen's photo

IgorFrankensteen

Sat 05/28/16 07:03 AM









Minor note of logic: by the reasoning these folks gave in the actual exchange, they would also intensely oppose Trumps idea to keep potential terrorists out of the country by defending the borders, and by building the wall, and by limiting Muslim foreigners.


blah, blah, blah... where's your proof?


I take it you have not yet availed yourself of the original unedited recording. That is my proof.

so post it...


Just rechecked. It is. If you refuse to read everything, and fail to look past the headline, you might not see it, but it's there.



Again, you didn't do your own most basic homework.

IT IS PART OF THE ORIGINALLY POSTED LINK.


no its not...


Look again, only this time read more than the headline. About the third large picture down below the headline is the full unedited audio.


i have no clue as to what you're saying here... more liberal nonsense? is posting something against your liberal religion? it's not real hard, do you not know how?


If you wont look and wont listen, that's your problem.

If you attribute good reading and listening skills to liberalism, that's great. It would be a first step to recognizing that it has nothing to do with this thread.