Katie Couric and her selectively edited Q&A. Why are the Anti-Gun Crusaders so dishonest?
Katie Couric has been caught with her finger on the delete button.
The Yahoo! News anchor's anti-gun documentary, Under the Gun, is now airing on EPIX. In it, Couric interviews some members of the gun rights group, Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL).
At a little over 20 minutes into the movie, Couric asks the group:
"If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?
For the next nine seconds, the VCDL members stare at the ground in silence. Here's the footage:
Except now, The Washington Free Beacon has obtained the unedited audio from the actual interview that proves they were anything but silent in answering her query. Listen below as members of the VCDL shower her with answers for four minutes straight:
Many of questions and stats that people seem to think are irrefutable or unanswerable "gotchas" simply aren't -- unless you ignore the answers. Then you showed 'em!
Most people just don't think you should have to run a background check on Uncle Skip or your buddy from work because they want to buy your used glock 19.
doesn't match the audio from the original interview, does it?
And both are provided so
silencer. I will not be sucked into a debate, nor reply to anything, right or wrong, postulated by a right wing rag. You can do what you please. Until the possibility Trump is inaugurated, it's still a free country.
because you don't like the source that provided it.
"Selective perception" is a highly developed talent with gun control fans.
It's the only way they can stay above water most of the time.
Oh, you mean applying your technique to others , as you finish the post with talk of a "free country".
This is how I would answer.
"Some people would also say that dinosaurs and humans co existed before the great flood, it doesn't mean they should be able to make policy. First, criminals and terrorists don't go to licensed gun stores or gun shows. We know that on studies like the Wright and Rossi studies decades ago. That being the case, background checks won't prevent criminals and terrorists from getting guns because they them. The two Quran Salifasts in California got them through a straw purchase, in violation of federal law. The buyer transferred the guns to the terrorists in violation of California's UBC. Why would they if they can get machine guns on the black market just like Quran thumpers did in Paris and other parts of Europe? It doesn't matter where you are on this planet, if you can get heroin, coke, or pot, you can get a gun. Heroin, cocaine, and other drugs have been illegal for over a century. Pot has been illegal since the FDR administration. Last year, there were more heroin deaths than homicides. These people who kill each other over market share won't be able to get guns? How do we have a serious conversation with people with the critical thinking skills of young earth creationists."
I have a Bible, Book of Mormon, Tao te Ching, and several guns.
owning a Bible, or The Satanic Verses, which I also "own" is a reason to attack the "assumed" religion or non-religion of a person then that assumption is void of any reasoning. I own quite a number of books of science and religion. I do believe that using Christianity to say one is pro life then to be for the death penalty or use of a device to kill and a will to kill is not pro life. I will protect myself and family. I am for life and I am for protecting others whose lives are threatened. But I will never logically understand a right wing religious nut job's reasoning the kill. Nor will I ever accept that nut job's propaganda to justify such. Not all Christians are idiotic. The hijackers of religion crosses all genres of religion. Even anarchists come in all stripes.
I support Stephanies statement and am very proud of the film.
That, from the Katie Couric of Yahoo News, of CBS Evening News, of 60 Minutes, of the Today show and so on.
Another article from CNN.
Fox News will be doing an interview tomorrow with the VCDL.
Of all the pro-rights organizations to defraud, Katie Couric choose the VCDL....LOL. Those guys and gals are a political powerhouse in Virginia. When Terry McAuliffe took reciprocity from Virginia in December 2015....three months later they had national reciprocity. That wasn't an accident folks.
I had no idea that this silly movie would bear so much fruit. Thank you, Katie Couric for helping to push the narrative that gun control advocates are dishonest.
Your initial post condemning the use of right wing sources after I inquired your opinion of this OP http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172195033
Newsbusters is a ring wing source they clearly state their purpose is to " Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias" The OP referenced is using it in an antigun post.
Do you have the consistency to condemn the use of an extremely right wing source again or are you brave enough to step forward and say that such use is ok because gunz? Alternatively you can delete more posts showing a lack of conviction of the beliefs you so strongly stated...
rags. I'm a Democrat. This is DU not RU.
given to a question, substituting silence to give the impression there were no answers to the question
If not, if you acknowledge that it's real, what difference does it make who reported it?
The full clip is on sound cloud. Does the Free Beacon have a right of center bias? Yes, but it doesn't mean the clip was fake or that the source was lying. It is called the genetic fallacy.
I listened to the whole clip. None of them gave the answer I would give.
Not that it matters. Facts are facts, no matter the source.
If you wish to deny the accusation that Katie was using the delete, please do so. Otherwise, it matters little where the truth originates. Incidentally, most MSM is more than willing to accept -- even promote -- deception when it comes to its hard-line gun-control agenda, so Kouric's loud fart in a quiet church will be roundly ignored, certainly not investigated. So you have to find the truth where it lays. Funny, how that works out when it comes to intellectual honesty and sourcing in DU.
The full story is included at the link above. The pro rights guys and gals here will like the read.
But I may have to sign up because these lying, dishonest controllers are liars and dishonest. If a pro-gun group had does something as dishonest the righteous outrage from the media and DU members would be palpable.
I have a lot of respect for the VCDL and Philip Van Cleave.
"Gun control" took it's first truly serious hit when Jimmy Carter commissioned James Wright, Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly to study the effects of the 1968 Gun Control Act and report back.
Jimmy didn't like what the liberal criminologists told him -- that there was no evidence that suggested any net benefit from "gun control". And keep in mind -- these were criminologists that originally signed off on the assumption that more guns = more gun violence until their research convinced them otherwise.
The name of the book that detailed their research: Under the Gun
There are a wide range of views expressed in the film, she said. 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.
In a brief statement of her own, Ms. Couric said, I support Stephanies statement and am very proud of the film.
Compare the original question on the audio to the one that appears on the video. During the actual interview -- when the panel began immediately responding to Couric's query, her example centers around a purchase made through an FFL at a gun store. She's clearly oblivious to the fact that ALL sales through FFL's involve background checks! Holy fuck --- the ignorance burns!
Notice that one of the panel members commented on this. The question had to be edited to cover up Couric's stupid question. You'll note that on video, she doesn't use the example of a gun store and FFL.
So, right out of the gate her strawman needed to be confronted. Then, as ge pointed out the 'some would say' "argument" deserved an aggressive response as well. Some would say that cows jump over the moon on Wednesday nights.......but that doesn't make it so. Why don't we check in with the experts -- criminologists -- to take our cues? (Then on to Wright/Rossi etc.)
So one of Couric's people claimed that the pause was inserted to allow viewers to digest the question? LOL........you betcha. We're all dumber than a crate of hammers! We believe you! And Couric stands behind this woman's "explanation" for the editing. Yup. She's got all of the "integrity" of Rachel Maddow on this issue!
I'm sure if that question was asked to your typical banner (her intended audience) they'd stare and be clueless. These guys beat her down for 5 minutes with the truth and logic, she's couldn't let that air.
... and claiming "she never meant that to happen". Wonder who gave that editor direction on what to cut and how to splice? And who approved the final release print?
But her name is credited as "Executive Producer" and as a "Co-Writer" and pretty much every other responsible position for the film.
She's proven herself a contemporary Leni Riefenstahl, with the same level if "integrity" and now she's just upset that she got caught and lost the last few shreds of journalistic credibility she had remaining.
Very smart move by the VCDL folks, recording the whole interview to cover things.
Funny, why would they not trust a lame stream media type to give them a fair shake? After all, they are so even handed and honest.