Katie Couric Under Her Own Gun for “Journalism” – Personal Thoughts

BEVERLY HILLS, CA - MAY 03:  Broadcast journalist and executive producer Katie Couric arrives at the premiere of EPIX's "Under The Gun" at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater on May 3, 2016 in Beverly Hills, California.  (Photo by Amanda Edwards/WireImage)

BEVERLY HILLS, CA - MAY 03: Broadcast journalist and executive producer Katie Couric arrives at the premiere of EPIX's "Under The Gun" at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater on May 3, 2016 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Amanda Edwards/WireImage)

Before anyone leaps on “not politics” this does not look at the political issue, only the journalistic one. 

Released to the collective groan of the gun community, Katie Couric’s Under the Gun “documentary” has come under the proverbial gun for “creative editing” of an interview with the Virginia Citizen’s Defense League. The New York Daily News gives the best brief I have seen:

Producer Katie Couric is apologizing for editing decisions on the documentary “Under the Gun” — which gave critics ammunition to shoot down the film’s message.

Second Amendment supporters are complaining over an eight-second pause edited in after a question about legal gun access for convicted felons and terror suspects posed to members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL). The pause makes the group look overwhelmed by the issue.

Audio recordings, however, reveal the members responded immediately.

“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,” Couric wrote in a post on the documentary’s official web site.

“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.”

Snippit from the film:

And the actual interview and response (here if not linked below).

This is journalistic malfeasance. It is a complete misrepresentation of what actually happened.

Now, if one was creating a stated politically motivated movie, say along the lines of Michael Moore who has actually stated that he makes movies, it would be entirely understandable if highly duplicitous (and I would strongly disagree with the conclusions drawn).

The problem is that this film, Under the Gun, was labeled a documentary, which per definition means that it purports to document truth and fact. The absolute fact of the matter is that what was shown was not what had actually transpired. While one can attempt to obfuscate by calling this “selective editing”, the fact that the truth was not shown means the “edit” is a lie. Calling it anything else is pure BS!

Katie Couric is being rightfully raked over the coals and her journalistic credentials should be seriously evaluated by any person consuming information from her. She is now a proven liar and to call her a “journalist” is a discredit to the word.

I, for one, hope that there is a solid grounds for the VDCL to take legal action.

For those wanting to read the political side of the “editing mistake” check out Forbe’s article here (which the title photo was used from). 



Nathan S.

One of TFB’s resident Jarheads, Nathan now works within the firearms industry. A consecutive Marine rifle and pistol expert, he enjoys local 3-gun, NFA, gunsmithing, MSR’s, & high-speed gear. Nathan has traveled to over 30 countries working with US DoD & foreign MoDs.

Nathan can be reached at Nathan.S@TheFirearmBlog.com

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


Advertisement

  • JumpIf NotZero

    Bought and paid for by Moms Demand Attention, I mean Everyown for Something, I mean Bloomberg… And anyone is even remotely surprised at the lack of integrity?

    The lesson here, is don’t talk to reporters about gun club, and if you do, record it yourself.

    • 1911a145acp

      AHMEN! Learned THAT one the hard way about 27 years ago- nearly cost me my job as a Gun store manager.

  • Proclaiming oneself a “journalist” should elicit the same response in normal conversation as mentioning that you eat live puppies.

    • iksnilol

      Well, better than dead puppies. I mean, they’re alive when you kill them.

      • Kivaari

        Live ones are already warm.

  • avconsumer2

    Wow. I hadn’t actually heard both versions. Thx TFB. It’s fun to witness blatant propaganda production sometimes. Keeps me frosty.

  • Roy

    I appreciate the discussion on this topic ( and how dismal the state of current journalism is, both in general and specific). But this website is for firearms not politics. Please do more reviews, coming soons, and gun design stuff.

    • Havok

      “Before anyone leaps on “not politics” this does not look at the political issue, only the journalistic one.”

      There had to be one

      • Roy

        His distinction is without difference. He is talking about this case because of its politically motivated slant/pov. He can put up as many disclaimers as he likes, fact remains he is only talking about this here because of the story’s politics and its intersection with our interests.

        • Havok

          Nathan is the only one that can speak to his motivation. Not you or I, and as the integrity of thefirearmblog writers is definitely above that of the majority of media firms, I’m going to take him at his word that this piece was about journalistic integrity.

          • Every time something along these lines comes up we Steve and I talk about it and then a make a decision on the article. In this case we could wander off into the political side pretty easily. Care was taken to stay away from that side of the argument.
            Lately there have been several instances of a lack of integrity in the major media outlets. Creative editing seems to be a very popular way to turn an interview around to make the interview say what they want rather than truthful reporting leaving the conclusion up to the reader or watcher.

          • abecido

            Lately? I recall news segments in which the words “semi-automatic” would be intoned over video of a full-auto burst from an Uzi, back during the original wave of “assault weapons” propaganda in 89-90.

          • MrEllis

            The assumption is he’s too dim to draw a rational conclusion of the end result? I give him more credit than that.

    • abecido

      As long as the possibility exists that bans and restrictions are coming soon, firearms will remain an inherently political subject.

    • Kivaari

      This is important. WE, gun owners, do not have the power of the media. They scream about the “gun lobby” as if it is all powerful and well funded. There is no way we can compete with mass media and all the resources they have, essentially at no cost to them. They produce shows that they are paid to produce and get to spread their hate around, while enjoying huge profits.

  • datimes

    It has been my understanding for decades that the words ‘journalist’ and ‘liar’ were synonymous..

    • abecido

      This is a slander upon the good name of liars.

    • Division Charlemange

      They are the Lügenpresse. They always lie.

  • David

    I also heard that some of the guns that they used in the film were acquired and transferred illegally. But of course, being famous media personalities they won’t face any charges.

    • MrEllis

      But you’re arguing the laws should be enforced…

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    Wow, I am totally shocked that some idiot from the media made an anti gun propaganda film.
    She was never a journalist in the first place, just a talking head newsreader.

    • gunsandrockets

      Just a propagandist with good makeup and great lighting.

    • Sulaco

      Democrate progressive with a bi line actually…

      • Mystick

        The line probably isn’t the only thing….

  • Don Ward

    Of course they found THAT GUY in the gun community who thinks convicted felons should be able to buy firearms when they get out of prison.

    • Audie Bakerson

      Why not?

      Why should they be out of prison if they are still a threat?

      • Don Ward

        And in the real world that is insane.

        • De Facto

          You dismissed Audie’s comment but did not address it. If they are still a threat to society, they should not be back on the street in the first place.

          • Don Ward

            Shoulda and coulda. Unfortunately, they are let back onto the streets. Address that problem first and we’ll talk about the rest later. Until then I don’t want a gangmember to get out of prison, walk to the nearest Big 5 sporting goods store, plop down $300 bucks for a Remington 870 and use it to murder his ex-girlfriend and the snitches who put him behind bars.
            Thats’ the real world where you let felons legally purchase firearms.

          • De Facto

            Implying that the criminal in question couldn’t simply steal a gun or use another implement to even the score with the “snitches”, but I digress.

            I reached my position on Felon’s rights since I have known men with one time felonies from their teens that a decade and a half later were model citizens with families, and they should have had the right to own a firearm.

            We are in agreement that the system is broken and must be reformed however. I regularly write my representatives, State and Federal, concerning that.

          • Don Ward

            Then let him steal a gun.
            In the meantime, in the real world, felons don’t need to walk into the nearest hardware or sporting goods store in order to buy a gun. And for all the handwringing about “Rights” there are currently legal mechanisms in place in the Fifty States for felons to get their rights restored.

          • De Facto

            Not at the Federal level though, see Sulaco’s comment above. Since you are restating your argument and not acknowledging counterpoints, I think we have reached the end of useful discussion. Thankyou for the points you proffered.

          • Don Ward

            I’m not the one who has to defend my point of view. It’s the law. The majority of US citizens agree. If you have some novel new approach to explain why felons need to be able to walk out of prison and be able to purchase a firearm, no questions asked, then go for it. In the meantime, nothing that anybody has said so far from touching anecdotes to whatever has changed my opinion on the subject. Good day to you too sir!

          • Kivaari

            Yep. Almost every cop I worked with committed felonies while a kid. Many were good men. Many were not. There is no way to know who is good and who is not. Like Ted Bundy. He was on a suicide hot-line sitting next to a famous crime writer (naturally, I can’t remember her name). She wrote the book “The Stranger Beside Me”. We had people named “Citizen of the Year” or “State Teacher of the Year” that were sexual perverts. They get awarded for the lie they can display in public.

          • Kivaari

            Often it is the undetected felon already living next door that is the bigger threat.

      • Kyle

        Considering our horrible recidivism issue in this country giving former felons back the right to own firearms is a horrible idea. 56% of released inmates are arrested agian within the first yeat. A staggering 76% withing the first five years after release. So no guns for them. Sorry.

        • Audie Bakerson

          And how many of them have guns despite this?

          • BryanS

            Stop with that logic. Next you are going to suggest that dealing drugs, assault, robbery, and murder should be illegal.

          • Audie Bakerson

            But dealing drugs shouldn’t be illegal!

          • Bryan Brah

            and what percentage of the “original” and “repeat” felonies are/were for non-violent drug crimes? The “war on drugs” is a failed experiment at social engineering that has done nothing but turn generations of [mostly poor and minority] young men into hardened criminals.

        • Kivaari

          The cycle starts with misdemeanor charges, often traffic tickets that go unpaid and a license gets suspended. That cycle drags them down farther, and soon we see bigger problems as their earning ability is impacted.

      • billyoblivion

        How can you tell if they’re “still a threat”?

        Inside prison they get shelter, food and health care. They are carefully watched and their lives are heavily regimented.

        Outside of prison they are “back on the block”.

        I think Felons *should* get their rights back, and if it were up to me I’d establish a process where they could–after a time–apply for restoration of their rights (handwaving details) which would involve a hearing where the state would have to demonstrate their un-fitness.

        In other words the felon would have to apply for restoration of their rights, and attend a hearing where their rights would be restored UNLESS the state can provide some level (more handwaving) of evidence that the felon shouldn’t get their rights restored.

        But if you look at recidivism rates for various things, and if you know how the criminal “justice” system works, often by the time someone’s in prison they’ve had a rather long history of interaction with the system, and plea bargins and other deals…often they’re folks with real problems.

        Keep in mind too that often when people are released from prison their sentence isn’t ended, they are still on probation. If you think of it from that perspective, they’re in a “proving” period.

      • Kivaari

        We can’t know and it would be wrong to retain those simply because we don’t know. It is also very expensive.

        • Audie Bakerson

          It’s expensive because of the unconstitutional Controlled Substances Act. Repeal it and we don’t have to worry about that anymore.

    • De Facto

      I suppose I’m “THAT GUY” because I do think that felons should have their rights restored. I’m also in favor of harsher sentencing, three strikes law, death penalty, and most importantly ending prosecutorial plea/charge bargaining. I would not advocate for one (restoration of felon’s rights) without the other (actually dealing with, punishing, and eliminating recidivist criminals.)

      • Don Ward

        Exactly. There is THAT GUY who thinks a gang banger who gets out after seven years for manslaughter gets to then buy a gun because of some bizarre intellectual distinction that has no correlation to the real world.

        • De Facto

          Harsher sentencing would mean not letting a gang banger out in seven years, more like 10-15.

          I understand your objection to this idea given that the current system is set up as a “catch and release” program where the same felons are in and out of the system constantly. Hence why I am now specifying, FIRST Eliminate the revolving door, start handing out life sentences of hard labor to career criminals, and death sentences to murderers and rapists. Second, restore felon’s rights.

          It’s not a bizarre intellectual distinction; it’s reason and logic. Stripping people of their constitutional rights without recourse creates a second class of citizen. Not something I can agree with. You must have a way for the system to distinguish between those who made a mistake, or who were in a bad situation – the rare “one time offender” – from those who are recidivist and have a criminal temperament; most easily characterized as people who view other humans as resources (gang bangers, loan sharks, addicts, rapists etc spring to mind). Criminals with that mindset are no better than mad dogs, and must be put down.

          Lastly, given how many laws there are on the books, it is becoming easier to become a felon every day. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned about “The Criminal Justice System” it’s surprisingly ruthless to first time offenders. Particularly when the prosecutor smells an easy victory he can use to pad his win/loss ratio and show that he’s “tough on crime”.

          • billyoblivion

            > Harsher sentencing would mean not letting a gang banger out
            > in seven years, more like 10-15.

            So instead of getting his Masters Degree in Practical Criminology he gets a PhD?

            It’s not length of the sentence, it’s the surety of arrest and punishment. Make the sentences *shorter* and worse (no TV, no air conditioning. For amusement you get books and for comfort you get fans. You have to grown your own food etc.) and provide some sort of re-integration into society (half way houses on the other side of the state from “home”, job training etc.) so that they have options. I’m not saying teach them to be lawyers or computer programmers, but *something* that can put food on the table and a way to avoid falling back into bad habits.

          • De Facto

            That’s an excellent point. Thanks for posting that. +1

        • BryanS

          Those gang bangers are getting their firearms charges pled away. Thus, they get out sooner than they should. Their guns are generally purchased illegally. their chosen profession… illegal. Their lifestyle, most likely crosses the felony line daily.

          Tell us how your laws keep all that from happening in the first place?

        • Bryan Brah

          Eliminate the category of “drug crime” and guess what, the number of criminals in the “system” drops dramatically. That “gang banger” gets to serve his full sentence because the prosecutor has fewer cases on which to concentrate and thus doesn’t feel the need to plea-down to “manslaughter,” the parole board doesn’t feel pressure to let him out for “good-time” to make room for the next guy, and since he’ll be in for a good long while he can receive treatment and learn valuable skills that will make him a productive member of society when he is finally released. Of course this assumes that he actually wants to be a productive member of society. If not and it turns out that he can’t change or goes back to his old ways through laziness or from force of habit, then the penalties for recidivism should certainly be stiffer than those for first-offenses. But once a criminal has done his time and “paid his debt,” why shouldn’t he be allowed to participate fully
          in society?

      • iksnilol

        Eliminating recidivist criminals and suggesting punishment in the same sentence is such a paradox I barely can comprehend you linking those two things.

        Simply put, “punishing” people like one does in IE the US only makes the criminal more likely to do something bad again.

        That, and the death penalty has no moral foundation + is more expensive than lifelong imprisonment.

        • De Facto

          Well, here we start veering into things that are even less tangentially related to firearms than shoddy journalism and felon’s guns rights, so we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t know if there’s a PM system on disqus or not, but if there is I’d be interested in discussing it with you there.

          • iksnilol

            Well, there’s little to discuss honestly.

            I mean, creating more criminals and incentivizing them towards destructive behaviour is of course going to lead them back to crime.

            I mean, there’s a reason plenty of countries don’t do that crap. Sure, it is more expensive in one regard, but a lot cheaper in another regard.

        • Kivaari

          Very true.

        • MrEllis

          Sweet, I’ll advise the lady with mental health issues who murdered a friend of mine while he was on-duty you’re on board to get her a gun again. She’s already in a half-way house so I’m sure they’ll be pleased to hear it.

      • Cmex

        I’m against recidivism, but I think that prison workshops + giving aid for released prisoners to get paying work is how you stop people from going back. I did research and it turns out 3 strikes laws actually not only don’t work, but they also increase crime and recidivism and balloon corrections budgets. Why? Because you stick a moron or a petty crook in a high security facility alongside hardened career criminals for a decade or more and all they’ll get is a world class education in crime and not be able to function outside. Honestly, I think it’d just be more merciful to shoot some poor sods. I wonder how recidivism would decrease if we just executed gangsters instead of releasing them back on the streets to be regarded as heroes and to go on and do even more crime. For people like drug dealers, armed robbers, and so on, just put a bullet in the back of their head once they’re convicted if they aren’t slain in the arrest. I’d actually support flogging for minor or nonviolent felonies (apart from drug dealing, embezzlement, etc), because the punishment has got to hurt, but it shouldn’t screw one out of society forever. In my opinion, once a debt to society is paid, it is paid.

    • gunsandrockets

      Careful. You might find yourself one of those poor souls stripped for life of a core liberty, because you crossed the wrong person at the wrong time.

      I have no problem with a law which prohibits those convicted of violent felonies from firearms ownership, as long as a fair process is in place for restoring those rights to the deserving.

      • Don Ward

        Nope.

      • billyoblivion

        In most states there already is a process, it’s just weighted such that the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating their fitness.

        This can often be done with a campaign donation.

        • Sulaco

          And there is no way to restore rights at the Federal level. There is a law passed by Congress that mandates ATF inplace a review for restoring rights they have so far refused and its getting near 25 yrs since the law or congressional rule was passed. When pressed ATF says they don’t have the funding. You may get your rights back at the state level and they may or may not allow you gun purchases, but when they run 1174 ATF will still refuse approval, (and consider your attempt at purchase a separate federal felony) then you have to have a state level approval and the store has to decide who to obey. You had better not cross state lines with that gun in this situation…

          • billyoblivion

            I didn’t know that.

            So basically the ATF is acting both illegally and unconstitutionally.

            Shocker.

        • BryanS

          Not to mention thousands in dollars in lawyer fees.

          Take into consideration a relative of my coworker. His wife had purchased a cough medicine, with sudafed. He bought just the wrong amount of tablets at the wrong time, not knowing she had done so.

          Under the law, thats a felony, they treat you like a meth dealer. He lost a few years of his life, his job, and most of his firearms collection (black powder items not affected).

          I guess he should never have a firearm again because he had allergies and some a-hole in DC put a numerical limit on the amount of cold medicine one could have, according to Don.

          • billyoblivion

            I suspect Don would agree with the following statement:

            “He never should have been indicted, if indicted he should not have been tried, and if tried he should have been found not-guilty”.

            I’ll go even further to suggest that most people in the US think that that is ALMOST the dumbest law on the books, and we we put the ALMOST in there because we know the sorts of politicos we elect, so there’s almost GOT to be something dumber.

            And truthfully I don’t believe that story, there was something else going on there. While Mens Rea has been read out of the law in many cases, that’s just too far out there to believe.

          • Kivaari

            There aren’t many pro-bono guys out there.

          • Kivaari

            In some states it even removes black powder guns from ownership. ANY firearm that uses an “explosion” to eject the projectile was unlawful.

          • Francisco Machado

            It is my understanding that BB guns are “firearms” in New Jersey.

          • n0truscotsman

            stories like that should invoke mass outrage over the institutionalized waste and abuse that is the war on drugs (and patriot act). Whoever was involved in that prosecution would have been mercilessly tarred and feathered by our founders for being an authoritarian group of ignoramuses.

            I keep telling people: the law is now used as a weapon, being wide and vast that it is, it can ensnare *anybody* no matter how well intentioned. mens rea? bahahaha! if only…

        • Kivaari

          Corruption. A while back my son got a speeding ticket. The county clerk said if he gave her an extra $50 it wouldn’t go on his record.

          • n0truscotsman

            That level of institutionalized extortion would impress the Russian mafia.

      • Kivaari

        Me too. In 1994 Washington state passed the Omnibus Juvenile Crime Act, that made all those youthful crimes into life long prohibition of gun rights. We used to give kids tickets for riding motorcycles on the beaches. In WA they are state highways. Years later, WA turned those tickets into Felony Eluding charges. In 1998 when NICS came on-line many of those good kids found out they were felons. Now, that is simply wrong. Had we known the kids would get screwed over like that we would never have issued a simple traffic ticket. It remain unjust. There are many youthful crimes that are and even were felonies. Boys making large firecracker bombs, as I did, would be felons if caught. I spotted my sons and their friends sneaking around. It turns out one of their classmates had made a bomb. I looked at it and said, NO! Not with that fuse. So I went to my EOD supplies (being a bomb tech – Leroy) and replaced the fuse, added an igniter and escorted about 50 kids to a safe site where WE rendered the device safe by blowing it in-place. Shortly after that a nearby kid mad a large firecracker and homemade fuse. As soon as he touched the fuse the bomb blew off his left arm, blinded him, planted finger bones in his chest and resulted in a prison sentence. Sometimes there’s a reason for the charges, other times, it’s kids being kids. Let’s not hammer them forever.

    • Kivaari

      There are some felons that I wouldn’t care about being armed. WE, the USA, sends too many people to prison over paperwork violations. We can’t send Hillary to prison for treasonous behavior, but if a gun dealer screws up, they get screwed.

  • Jeeze, Katie’s looking a little worse for wear under those runway lights…

    http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/f/fa/Crypt-keeper.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110503143833

    • datimes

      I think it was the colonoscopy.

      • Billy Jack

        Bobbing for apples every morning in a barrel of Botox hasn’t helped like she thought it would.

    • MrEllis

      Attacking her looks after questioning her journalistic integrity is sort of ironic.

      To me this video “documentary” is no different the the doom and gloom NRA pieces put out, just other end of the spectrum. I don’t really consider it good work on any level and pretty much ignored it. It seems the only people fixated on it are conservatives. As a progressive I found it to be misinformed and biased, but no more so than any of the many “pro-gun” docus. At the end of the day, every rant seen here would be better served by rational discourse and logic.

      • Mr. C

        First, I believe that the jab at her looks where in jest. As long as you tell the news as it is. you can look like death for all I care. Second of all, while the NRA may be a bit too eh “right” and it shows in their docs, I don’t believe that they do the frankly deceptive tactics used here.

        • MrEllis

          A mindless reader of the blog making a jest is different than a purported “blogger” on a popular website that is calling out a journalist in a public forum. Dabbling in misogyny is not the greatest sin in that equation. Integrity is.

          I feel the NRA is a carbon copy of her smear job. I have no respect for the organization and think lobbyists as a whole are determental to democratic values. We’ll be bought and sold on the block long before anyone has a need for their “Second Amendment solutions.” Unless we turn them on ourselves because we’ve allowed the Republic to slip into this state with apathy and hyperbole.

          • “Calling her out”… For aging?

          • MrEllis

            You work for a site calling out her integrity and you’re sitting her trying to mock her looks. I get you don’t grasp the implications, but don’t pretend you’re an innocent bystander.

          • It may surprise you to learn this, but all writers for The Firearm Blog are independent contractors. No one writer is responsible for what any other writer says. We collaborate here on the blog, but each person is an individual with his or her own views and his own perspective.

            Further, being a writer for TFB doesn’t mean I lose my sense of humor – particularly in the comments, which are a more laid back forum. I realize that some people have a problem with reading a serious piece on some subject, and then finding out that the author has a real personality and a real life, and a real sense of humor, but veiling that has never been something I could do. So I do not try.

            Now, maybe you didn’t find my comment about Katie funny. That’s OK, I can’t possibly make everyone laugh at once. Maybe you thought it was in bad taste of misogynistic or some other hooie. That’s fine, too, you’re entitled to your opinion. What it is not is a violation of my journalistic ethic.

          • MrEllis

            See the thing is you think it’s about your sense of humor, it’s not, I could care less. You being sexist isn’t even the problem, nor your ability to grasp it. Your lack of integrity is.

          • Sure, whatever. Having a sense of humor = having no integrity, got it.

          • Mystick

            I dunno… something smells in Ellisburg…

      • Oh yes, how dare a blogger have a sense of humor!

        • MrEllis

          Yeah, because we should base journalism on looks.

    • Anonymoose

      Hillary?

  • Cannoneer No. 4

    FIREARMS NOT POLITICS is TFB’s phony virtue signaling that they aren’t tools of the NRA like all those less enlightened gun blogs.

    • billyoblivion

      I would make a joke about that comment, but it would be political and that’s not allowed here.

    • Kivaari

      What is wrong with supporting the NRA? They are closely aligned with my thinking. Often not strong enough in their condemnation of the liars in mass media.

      • Cannoneer No. 4

        Nothing is wrong with supporting the NRA. Especially for a gun blog. Supporting NRA, GOA, SAF, JFPO and any other pro-RKBA special interest group is righteous. SJW moral preening is not so righteous. They need to get rid of that motto. If it wasn’t for politics none of us would own any guns.

    • Some Guy

      Or just that the non-stop aneurysm inducing rage that comes with discussing gun politics gets tiresome.

      Would be a nice break from the thinly veiled promotional ‘content’ but I suppose that’s what those other blogs are for.

  • Lance

    Never trust or listen to any ABC CBS NBC personality’s. They been out to ban all firearms since the 80s. They will lie and use deceptive weightings any chance they get.

    • +CNN and MSNBC, and often PBS and NPR, and HBO

    • Kivaari

      Since the 60s.

    • MrEllis

      Why are they trying to ban all firearms?

  • OJS

    Plastic face, plastic brain.

  • UCSPanther

    This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with journalism ethics.

    Altering, misleading and distorting facts is a universal violation of honest reporting, something that is being all too frequently forgotten in News media these days.

    • Cannoneer No. 4

      There is no ethics in “journalism.”
      99% of self-identified “journalists” are Democrat operatives with bylines.

      • Division Charlemange

        It’s a little rough to blame airheads for what they act in. They were enabled by the folks who produce their segments and own their organizations.

        • Cannoneer No. 4

          Not rough enough to break them of their bad habits, yet.

          • Kivaari

            They never get real punishment. Wasn’t Brian Williams demoted to MSNBC without a big salary cut? Still making millions for doing what he does best, lie.

          • Division Charlemange

            That’s because the people who own the newsmedia, and the other media organizations that oppose American values, want him doing exactly that. Though for more ideological reasons (i.e. Kah-tie in this example) than Williams’s self-aggrandizement.

        • Kivaari

          People such as her BELIEVE what they say. The ends justify the means.

  • Ron

    Guns and more importantly the American people’s ability to posses them are politics. No amount of wishful thinking can divorce the two.

  • Joe Schmo

    This type of nonsense needs to be put to an end. I hope the VDCL takes action.

    • Kivaari

      Do you thin Couric will allow VDCL an hours special to correct her? Two minutes? One?

  • xx23

    WIKIPEDIA Katie Couric:

    ===Under the Gun “documentary” controversy===

  • Sulaco

    Katie’s producer for the film is refusing to change anything to say it was wrong to edit the film that way, in an interview he stated that since the film which he still called a documentary was servicing a “higher purpose” it was alright and just to edit it to enforce his views on the subject…

    • Kivaari

      Elitists know they are smarter than us and therefor use that intellect to correct we little people.

  • Sgt. Stedenko

    My comment about that lying POS would be moderated so I’ll just call her a DC and leave it at that.

  • Sasquatch

    As long as there have and will be guns there will be politics around the corner.

  • Jeffersonian

    I hope VCDL sues the whole crew out of house and home and uses the money to pass Constitutional Carry in Virginia.

    • Kivaari

      How and for what? Creative writing (editing). Show your loss to the jury. The best you can hope for is a stupid apology that no one sees.

  • Has moore returned his “documentary” awards?

  • Lew Siffer

    Perhaps we should pity Ms. Couric. She actually thought she could get away with this. The poor little fool doesn’t understand that we now have sources of information other than CBS, NBC,and ABC.

    • Kivaari

      She will get away with this. How many people watched the show? How many knew what happened? How many of those viewers will see anything that shows the liars for what they are? Not more than one or two percent likely know of this controversy. If it doesn’t show up here and similar low viewed sites, it wont show up anywhere else. Maybe it will hit some of the gun magazines in 3 months.

  • Kivaari

    Everyone is a journalist or now photo-journalist. Almost none have earned a degree, and those that do, it no longer matters. She has 40 years of being a liar.

    • JumpIf NotZero

      I’ll never be able to catch up to that.

    • Cmex

      I took a journalism class, once. Needless to say, I blew at it; good journalism is HARD, not only because it’s unlike any other form of writing, but because it is tempting to manipulate facts to suit your agenda.

  • John Yossarian

    “If there are no background checks, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?” – DUH, YOU CAN”T!

    I don’t care how many laws you pass and procedures you put law-abiding people through – You will never stop a determined law-breaker from obtaining firearms or other weapons.

    That is why we – law-abiding people – all need to weapon-up! It’s a very simple answer to a very simple question, and I’m not the first person to point this out.

    How they thought that inserting silence into that video would make the question seem unanswerable speaks to me of the very low intelligence of the people who would watch this program.

    • Kivaari

      The gangsters of the 20-30s stole most of their guns from police stations and national guard barracks.

      • John Yossarian

        Excellent point – Yet these lame-brains think keeping guns only in the hands of police and military will ensure our safety.

        Hey – I do like that idea as applies to the safety of these idiots. But I take my own ass a little more seriously!

        • Mystick

          Indeed. There exists, and I don’t have a link(sadly) a statistic/listing study detailing the number of firearms and otherwise restricted items lost or stolen by the police, military, and now alphabet-soup government agencies.

          The numbers are staggering.

      • UCSPanther

        I remember reading that the Bonnie and Clyde gang raided a National Guard Armory. That was where their got their hands on some BARs, which gave them a huge advantage over Law Enforcement at the time.

  • datimes

    I apologize for this but this photo is the essence of Ms Couric.

  • Swarf

    And, to add insult to journalistic malfeasance, she got completely schooled by the interview subjects.

  • n0truscotsman

    That narrative though…

  • Mike

    I have been a member of the VCDL for years, they are a stellar organization plugged into 2nd amendment rights in VA. They have had some major wins in the last few years and have stopped the idiot govs march to eliminate private gun ownership.

  • Anyone weighing in on the subject of felons and “terror” suspects having their Second Amendment rights infringed upon should take a moment to consider just how many Congressional staffers and employees of the DOJ are on the “terrorist watch list”, and reflect upon just how blatantly unconstitutional the entire Armchair Patriot Act really was. It literally only takes an anonymous phone call to get someone put on the watch list, and anyone who’s ever had an angry ex should take note of that and immediately write a polite letter to their representatives.

  • Mark K

    Malfeasance – so appropriate.

  • John R Pyles

    How Yahoo still employs her is beyond imagination.

  • Bob

    Camille Paglia, noted media pundit:
    “Let me take this opportunity to say that of all the innumerable print and broadcast journalists who have interviewed me in the U.S. and abroad since I arrived on the scene nearly 20 years ago, Katie Couric was definitely the stupidest.” — Salon, January 14, 2009

  • Zebra Dun

    These media clowns feel they are above the law they are breaking to enact even tougher laws they will ignore as well.
    Katie probably has an armed guard 24/7365 with her.

  • Richard Lutz

    She should interview car nuts who oppose making it more difficult for felons and terrorists to get hold of cars they can drive into crowds or turn into massive mobile bombs. What is to stop someone buying 10 cars, turn them all into mobile bombs packed with nails and timed to explode at the same time, and park them in densely populated areas? How many people need more than one car that is speed limited to 15 MPH and fitted with massive foam bumpers to protect pedestrians? Sadly some people love their high speed cars more than they love children. Would that include you?

  • Kill Quint: Volume 1

    We all know that Couric is a progressive leftist chunk of human waste, so none of this should be a surprise to anyone.

    After all, what else would you expect from someone that was once asked why she became a journalist, where she replied, “I want to change the world”?

    BTW, Lance Armstrong is her seventh cousin (yes, feel free to look it up). Hmmm.

    Pathological lying must be strong in their DNA, I suppose.

  • ChiptheBarber

    Kudos to the VDCL for their incredibly intelligent and well thought out responses. ESPECIALLY that last lady giving the opposite example of what KC was trying to say.