In May of 2016 Katie Couric and her associates produced a “documentary” entitled, “Under the Gun.” Its website describes the film as follows:
“UNDER THE GUN 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. Through the lens of families impacted by the mass shootings in Newtown, Aurora, Isla Vista and Tucson, as well as those who experience daily gun violence in Chicago, the documentary looks at why politicians are finding it difficult to act and what is being done at the state and local levels. The film is executive produced and narrated by Katie Couric and directed by Stephanie Soechtig.”
The film’s anti-gun predisposition is clearly conveyed by that description. Included in the “documentary” is a clip in which Katie Couric interviews the pro-gun rights group, Virginia Citizens Defense League. Couric asks them, “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?” The group’s members are then shown looking around in silence for nine seconds, appearing stumped by the question. But in reality it was later revealed that members of the group offered responses to her question immediately. The edited version and a portion of the actual responses can be heard in this news segment on Fox News from May 26, 2016:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4913171510001
What a devious and unfair thing for Couric and her friends to do. Couric initially dismissed the criticism of the misleading editing, saying she was proud of the film; but she later (when the criticism wouldn’t go away, presumably) issued the following apology:
“As executive producer of ‘Under the Gun,’ a documentary film that explores the epidemic of gun violence, I take responsibility for a decision that misrepresented an exchange I had with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL),” she wrote. “My question to the VCDL regarding the ability of convicted felons and those on the terror watch list to legally obtain a gun, was followed by an extended pause, making the participants appear to be speechless.
“When I screened an early version of the film with the director, Stephanie Soechtig, I questioned her and the editor about the pause and was told that a ‘beat’ was added for, as she described it, ‘dramatic effect,’ to give the audience a moment to consider the question. When VCDL members recently pointed out that they had in fact immediately answered this question, I went back and reviewed it and agree that those eight seconds do not accurately represent their response….I regret that those eight seconds were misleading and that I did not raise my initial concerns more vigorously.”
http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/katie-couric-under-the-gun-apology-misleading-epix-1201785392/
So let me see if I understand this correctly. The makers of this “documentary” thought it would be better to edit out what was actually said and substitute a version that was, in essence, fiction? Sounds perfectly in keeping with how the Left approaches just about everything. It is no exaggeration to say that there is always an attempt to mislead and misrepresent in whatever the Left produces, because that is what is necessary for the Left to advance its agenda.
The Virginia Citizens Defense League has filed a $13 million defamation suit and they are entitled to every penny, in my humble opinion. This was no accident. According to her own apology, Katie Couric knew that the film’s selective editing would give viewers a false and unflattering impression of the members of this group, and that is what it intended to do. One can only imagine what Ms. Couric’s response would be if Fox News, for example, edited an interview with her so as to purposely leave viewers with the false impression that she was stumped for words; but then, fairness is something that leftists believe only they are entitled to. No expense is too great for someone else to pay for the sake of advancing the Left’s agenda.
A panel of politically-mixed journalists on Fox’s ‘Happening Now’ this morning seem to think Couric’s apology was enough penance, even while they unanimously called the actions of Couric and her film associates “inexcusable.” This remark by Bill McGurn of the WSJ, however, really hit the nail on the head:
“We all know in our business that it’s very easy to skew things with just a little touch here, where we place things and so forth…”
Absolutely they all know. That little perk is precisely why the Left gravitates to the field of media.
It’s time to send Couric and other elites a message that they aren’t at liberty to abuse anyone else to get what they want. Give Virginia Citizens Defense League their $13 million.
~CW
Categories: Political
Pesky Truth 
This is par for the course for liberal democrats, they’ve done it countless times before and because they’re the “elite” nothing ever gets done about it. I don’t care what they do the the Perky One, as long as she suffers some sort of pain from it – a public admonishment from the network would be a start. Unfortunately, history shows that these leftist seldom suffer any consequences resulting from their intentional misdeeds. It’s about time that we see them held up to scrutiny and publically humiliated. And to start with, Hillary needs to stand trial for her misdeeds, if for no other reason than to show that there’s a new sheriff in town and henceforth, crimes will be punished.
As long as they escape punishment, they’ll just keep doing it.
LikeLike
There is a sense of entitlement among the Left that they can do anything they want and if others are hurt…. oh well! You’re right – they need to face the consequences same as anyone else.
LikeLike
I believe the court should rule against her and send her a letter of admonishment asking for a suspension. If CBS has any guts it would then suspend her without pay for at least a year (about 6-10 million). I am not a big a fan of monetary decisions (especially non-injury). It promotes frivolous lawsuits and keeps our judicial system backed up causing the tax payers money as well as increases our insurance costs. But I know this is not how things work in our county where everyone wants to get rich quick.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how declining to compensate people who were intentionally injured and suffered real damages discourages FRIVOLOUS suits, Patrick. If anything it would only discourage people who have legitimate complaints and, in doing so, ultimately reward the people who harmed them. Despite the fact that they’ve been abused, lawsuits do serve a legitimate purpose, both for punishment and retribution, both of which are sometimes needed.
LikeLike
How do you put a price on damages? Everyone has had their character defamed, does everyone have a claim? Where does the claim line stop? I had a doctor majorly screw up my pinky finger in an operation (It does not work anymore – it would be better to cut it off at this point it is just in the way). I reported him to the medical board of Colorado and he was issued a letter of admonishment. He has lost his job and cannot find work. What good would me suing do? How much money is a pinky worth? Is it worth driving up the costs of health insurance? I probably suffered from this more than these folks had their characters defamed. You cannot put a price on things. This reminds me of liberals thinking that money is the solution to everything and they therefore tax us more. We are a sue happy society. I don’t think these people suffered any real damage. They are soft if that is what they are upset about. I would trade my neurological disorder for what happened to these people. I would trade function of my pinky finger for what happened to these people. Curic should be punished. She should be fired and never given a job again. That would be justice, not some lobbying money.
LikeLike
This may be one of the rare times we don’t see eye to eye, Patrick.
I am every bit as offended by frivolous lawsuits and other abuses of our court system as you are. I have never sued anyone in my life. But IMO lawsuits are a legitimate remedy for people to seek justice when they have been genuinely and intentionally wronged, especially if it could have material consequences for them.
The mission of the members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League is to promote gun rights. Their credibility is critical to pursuing that mission. I believe that anyone has a right to disagree with the group and to say whatever they want about them as long as it’s not a lie, but I don’t believe anyone has the right to edit the group’s OWN words to portray them in a dishonest way. If they have such a right, where does it end? Can I interview Katie Couric and dub in another voice to give an obscene, racist rant and then sell this as a documentary? What would happen to Couric’s reputation (and her income!) if I did such a thing? What if a disgruntled parent were to pose as your wife on Facebook and make it look as if she were threatening other teachers? What if she were fired as a result? Freedom of speech means that we own our own words and our own silence. No one has the right to mess with either one as far as I’m concerned.
I agree that it’s difficult to put a price on the damages in this situation, but courts make these judgments all the time. And again, I don’t see why the pursuit of a legitimate case should have any bearing on frivolous lawsuits. They are two separate things.
As always, I appreciate the debate.
LikeLike
Great article!
LikeLike
Thanks for the refresher, CW, I’d forgotten about this little stunt of hers.
It wasn’t bad enough that her question was worded to be intentionally misleading, she okayed the edit for lefty slanted drama. The ONLY reason she apologized is because she got caught, not because she was sorry (the only time a liberal apologizes).
It didn’t even take the full eight seconds – instead it was a split second before she threw Stephanie Soechtig and the editor under the bus. And excuse the rant, but aren’t we hearing a lot of apologies these days? It seems awfully convenient to say the wrong thing, usually on purpose, and then just issue an apology after the damage is done.
Award the VCDL full damages and then blast it out in big headlines.
LikeLike
Yep, Kathy. SOMEONE needs to show the lefties that taking responsibility includes suffering the consequences of their actions. That will be news to them.
LikeLike
I remember that story.
Thank God this organization is taking her to task and $12 million should hurt. She did make them look like fools. And this film is still being distributed without any correction. Unbelievable.
That stupid apology was a lie and those who saw the film probably never even saw her apology.
Time to make so called journalists pay up. I truly love this, CW.
LikeLike
“That stupid apology was a lie and those who saw the film probably never even saw her apology.”
Exactly. An apology is completely unsatisfactory, and I doubt that Couric would settle for an apology if anyone had the nerve to mess with her image.
LikeLiked by 1 person
AMEN!
But, why not TREBLE Damages???
LikeLike
I’m not certain but I think treble damages only apply to out-of-pocket losses. I’d be happy to give them more but $13 million ought to send a painful message.
LikeLiked by 1 person