Couric edited interview with pro-gun activists

[tmq40]

"Audio shows Katie Couric documentary deceptively edited interview with pro-gun activists.

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."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05 ... tcmp=hpbt3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is anyone really surprised?

[AlanM]

Couric set up the VCDL. In the comments of the story published on the Ammoland web site there is a comment about the recording of the group interview.

Ron Hatfield says:
May 25, 2016 at 1:28 PM
The set up was at 1 hour 36 min. She asked for silence for a sound check.. Everyone who knows anything about doing a sound recording knows is that you do the sound check at the beginning, not the end of an interview…She did not get the “right” answers to her questions so she basically screwed everyone in the interview and manipulated the tape..

I just listened to that section of the group interview and it seems to be just after Couric finds out that the meeting room is for meeting she was at.
Time tick 1:38:19 I here "so we can't talk" and then several seconds of silence. I assume that is the "sound check" that Mr. Hatfield is in reference to.

[BobK]

Frog & scorpion

[Brian D.]

This story continues to get traction. Popped up first thing on my Cincinnati Bell Wireless homepage this morning.

[Mr. Glock]

This story continues to get traction. Popped up first thing on my Cincinnati Bell Wireless homepage this morning.

Maybe you'll see it trending on Facebook next

[Chuck]

It was trending on my face book last night

My friend BobK is right
Frog and the scorpion,,,,

[keepitsimple]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/25/media/k ... index.html

...But Soechtig (director) indicated that she, not Couric, had editorial control. In a statement Wednesday afternoon, Soechtig explained the edit this way: "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."
And then completely cut out the part that shows them actually answering. Because that's non-biased and fair journalism.

...Couric also issued a statement on Wednesday afternoon. She said, "I support Stephanie's statement and am very proud of the film."
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."

Her integrity is gone. She never really held any with conservatives to begin with, but she doesn't even have it from her own base now. Left leaning outlets such as Washington Post, CNN, and Huffington Post are lambasting both her and Soechtig, and even NPR just picked up this story as well saying that the interview would not pass muster at NPR for fairness, for cripes sake.

Journalism is dead. We have opinion writers and entertainment media.

[techmike]

Is this not the same crew that 'edited' George Zimmerman's 911 call? This appears to be systemic at NBC, and flows from the top. Otherwise heads would have rolled.

[tmq40]

Journalism is dead. We have opinion writers and entertainment media.

So true!

[curmudgeon3]

That Journalism School at Ohio University must be a real riot to attend.

[catfish86]

She is not receiving half the scorn she deserves. Her excuses and claims it WASN"T INTENTIONAL....lets see, you accidentally found tape of a pause with them not speaking and spliced it after a pointed question, cutting away the instant responses. She should be resigning and failing that she should be fired.

[AlanM]

The outrage is spreading outside the pro-gun community.
Here's an example, on a conservative web site (naturally):

Gungate: Katie Couric and a question of ethics

When news anchor Katie Couric debuted her documentary Under the Gun earlier this month, she billed it as a balanced look at the gun control debate.

There was a “ huge silent majority ” of gun owners, she said, who supported moderate gun control measures, and that many National Rifle Association members did not agree with the group’s political positions.

Just two weeks later, Couric and director Stephanie Soechtig are under pressure over what many observers are calling deceptive editing of a key moment in their film. The leader of a gun rights group featured in the documentary says the film edited out gun owners’ responses to one of Couric’s questions – and instead has them sitting in silence, looking “stupid”.

In the press, criticism has been fierce. National Public Radio’s David Folkenflik said the “manipulation – and that’s what it was – would not pass muster at NPR under its principles for fairness”. At the Washington Post, Erik Wemple called Soechtig’s initial response to the criticism “ weaselly ” and wrote: “An apology, retraction, re-editing, whatever it is that film-makers do to make amends – all of it needs to happen here.”

[Mr. Glock]

If you have a good argument, and the people really are on your side, you don't weaken your position by using unethical and manipulative behavior.

But if your premise is untrue, then all you have is unethical and manipulative behavior at your disposal. (Or blind stupidity, but that is not the case here. This was intentional as admitted.)

[catfish86]

She works as "Global Anchor" for Yahoo! News. I wonder if that is the hollywood equivalent of releasing straight to cable. She should not be holding any news anchor position after this stunt. Who can trust her. Another point to mention, when someone does something like this, it is usually not the only time.

[catfish86]

Sorry for following up my own post but I have watched a couple of opinion pieces and a couple of things struck me (don't worry, they didn't injure me).

First, had Michael Moore done this and billed it as an advocacy piece, point it out, but that is what it is. Katie Couric has been the anchor for all three main networks and is currently the anchor for Yahoo News. The documentary was billed as an unbiased piece, enhancing its propaganda value and bringing it under journalistic expectations to be fair and balanced. Clearly failed.

Second, the scary thing is all three networks saw nothing wrong with her as to her ethics. Generally people don't just fall off the truck and start doing something like this. She clearly saw nothing wrong with this and fully expected not to be questioned about it. What does that say about the culture of the news media (something we already know)?

Third, in her apology she still says she proud of the piece instead of ashamed which is what she should be. Again, she really doesn't see anything wrong with it other than she got caught.