Backlash on Katie Couric supported gun documentary...

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

There's several articles on this... just sharing one of them here, in case others were unaware of the controversy brewing over the film. Apparently the story was broken by "Ammoland"...

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/25/media/katie-couric-guns-stephanie-soechtig/index.html

 

Journalistic integrity has been dead for at least a decade IMO... this is yet another example.

 

- Mrs. Peel

 

 

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

whoopsy! I guess I should have posted this under General Firearms forum? Sorry!

[High Exposure 5,661]

Already being discussed in a poorly named topic:

 

http://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/81753-some-people-should-not-be-drawing-breath-anymore/#entry1043133

[Newtonian 453]

I saw this but did not understand the implications of the 8-second silence. Someone please explain the terribleness of what could have been an editing error.

[Howard 538]

I saw this but did not understand the implications of the 8-second silence. Someone please explain the terribleness of what could have been an editing error.

The time was inserted to make gun owners look stupid in that they could not respond.  The period of silence did not actually take place, but was cut and pasted from some other time when people were just sitting quietly.  In actuality someone in the audience immediately responded and said that criminals do not get guns through legal channels. 

[zebra007 7]

8-seconds of silence does not accidentally get inserted while editing.

[Newtonian 453]

A link to the video would be helpful. None available in the article I read yesterday.

[Howard 538]

A link to the video would be helpful. None available in the article I read yesterday.

You can probably find it on the Foxnews site. They showed it on TheFive yesterday

[n4p226r 105]

A link to the video would be helpful. None available in the article I read yesterday.

http://www.ammoland.com/2016/05/unethical-journalism-couric-alters-words-vcdl-members/#axzz49rHEqLXi

[45Doll 5,874]

Also another story here. See also the link to the original Free Beacon story.

 

http://freebeacon.com/columns/katie-couric-is-a-liberal-hack-site-claims/

 

The silent footage inserted into the documentary stream is called 'b-roll'. That's footage taken prior to the start of the interview while the 2A people are waiting quietly. This footage would normally be used during other narrative. In this case it was deliberately inserted to make the 2A people look dumbfounded. It was not a case of sloppy editing. Quite the contrary.

[Newtonian 453]

Thanks. The question occurs at 36:43 and the answers come less than a second later.

 

That is clearly not journalism, it's 60-minute style bullshit ambush. Couric the establishment cunt who will take on all comers like a $15-per-night hooker, with her passive/aggressive questioning ("I know how you're all going to answer but I'll ask anyway," delivered with the faux gentility of an archbishop hearing the confession of a 12 year old who just discovered masturbation), should be fired.

 

Is anyone surprised? The world runs on bullshit. The major networks have for decades served as the brainwashing apparatus of the loony left, the principal servers of bullshit any style, rare, medium, or well-done.

 

I can't wait for the day the major networks and newspapers, particularly my wife's favorite NY Times, go belly up. I don't feel one shred of sadness for their hemorrhaging money or the lost "greatness" they supposedly once demonstrated. 

 

Anyone who actually watches the major networks aside from baseball should have his or her head examined. Don't bullshit me about "there's actually a lot of good stuff, like Wild Animal World." You can do all the watching you like on the Internet and forego the Soros-Zuckerfuck-funded bullshit.

[45Doll 5,874]

Addendum: You may or may not know that Couric is Yahoo's 'news chief'.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric

 

If you go to that page, click on the main story at the top (irrelevant), and then read the comments at the bottom. If any of you are Yahoo subscribers, or have accounts there, you might wish to comment too.

[Newtonian 453]

Addendum: You may or may not know that Couric is Yahoo's 'news chief'.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric

 

If you go to that page, click on the main story at the top (irrelevant), and then read the comments at the bottom. If any of you are Yahoo subscribers, or have accounts there, you might wish to comment too.

How fitting that this token pretty face should head the news on the perenially-mismanaged, soon-to-be-extinct dinosaur known as Yahoo. She fits right in with the scared, delicate pajama boys.

[Kevin125 4,772]

How fitting that this token pretty face should head the news on the perenially-mismanaged, soon-to-be-extinct dinosaur known as Yahoo. She fits right in with the scared, delicate pajama boys.

 

Pretty face?   Eghad.....

 

And the NY Times has never been great. Always been leftists though. As far back as WWII when they cherry picked "news" along with the AP, to suit their leftist agenda.

[Newtonian 453]

Pretty face?   Eghad.....

So you would kick her out of bed?

[Kevin125 4,772]

So you would kick her out of bed?

 

She would never get that far.  It's kind of like a Michelle Obama thing.   Not that she's horrifically ugly... but she ain't hot either.  And the symbolism would kill it for me.

[Newtonian 453]

She would never get that far.  It's kind of like a Michelle Obama thing.   Not that she's horrifically ugly... but she ain't hot either.  And the symbolism would kill it for me.

Black/white issues and personal tastes aside, how can you compare Michelle's looks with Katie's? Joan Rivers, a liberal, called Michelle a "tranny." She looks like one. Even my mother, who adores the Obamas, has compared the First Lady to certain jungle creatures. Crude and tasteless and possibly racist? Yeah, but mom is losing it...

 

My friend, you have to let your dick do more thinking for you. This "symbolism" shit is for Schopenhauer and Nietsche fans. 

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

OK, I'll leave the "would you kick her out of bed" discussion to you boys... back to the issue at hand... my primary interest in this topic was because it's just one small example of how the media is winning the battle (IMO) for "hearts and minds". I read a lot of different news sources across the political spectrum, and the consistent editorial choices are astounding: 

• Gang slaying? Rarely will you see it reported on major media outlets.
• Defensive gun use? Unless it's unusually dramatic, again, that isn't deemed "newsworthy" either.
• But if a legal gun owner shoots himself or herself in the foot - or god forbid, their kid gets shot -  it will be reported until your ears bleed for 3 weeks straight on every major news outlet.

 

I mean, the movie theater/popcorn incident in Florida - remember that? How could you not? In the days that story was covered, there were probably dozens of DGU's and dozens of gangbangers shooting each other that NO ONE heard about - even though in REALITY those events paint a much more accurate  portrait of what's happening in this country with guns (not to mention, of course, the 10's of millions of guns that sat safely at home or were used recreationally). That steady drumbeat of misinformation (or at least grossly disproportionate info) will be catastrophic... it's a cost/benefit analysis that only lists the costs. How can that be helpful?

 

Because people are lazy... they won't research things. They will just believe what they see and hear. It doesn't help that I see "everytown for gun safety" now being REGULARLY cited as a legitimate source across major media (and I'm not talking about HuffPo - I'm saying CNN, NBC, etc.) always with a link pushing readers back to their website. That increases both that group's perceived legitimacy AND their website traffic. This is the real, long-term problem in my assessment. The Bloomberg money to back candidates did not always work, but this steady drip-drip-drip of negative publicity throughout the media is (in the long-term) far more damaging.

 

And I do think that sometimes the NRA is a bit tone-deaf. No offense, but a Charlie Daniel's ad appeals only to one slice of the population - not a broad swath. Why is there a documentary like this one in question being made... and not a documentary profiling DGU cases? Some of those DGU cases are inherently dramatic - but you know 60 minutes will never cover them. So, why isn't the NRA sponsoring some aspiring filmmakers to come up with something? Or sponsoring a contest for best videos of people recounting their DGU stories? I just don't see the same kind of committed, strategic broad-based marketing approach in 2A groups as in gun control groups... and  I just think that's a big concern. And, hey I joined the NRA - so I put my money where my mouth is so-to-speak, therefore it's legitimate for me to question how it's being spent.  Just my 2 cents.

 

Oh... and to end on more of an up note... have a nice holiday weekend everyone!

 

Mrs. Peel

[High Exposure 5,661]

Well said Mrs Peel!

[Newtonian 453]

OK, I'll leave the "would you kick her out of bed" discussion to you boys... back to the issue at hand... my primary interest in this topic was because it's just one small example of how the media is winning the battle (IMO) for "hearts and minds". I read a lot of different news sources across the political spectrum, and the consistent editorial choices are astounding: 

• Gang slaying? Rarely will you see it reported on major media outlets.
• Defensive gun use? Unless it's unusually dramatic, again, that isn't deemed "newsworthy" either.
• But if a legal gun owner shoots himself or herself in the foot - or god forbid, their kid gets shot -  it will be reported until your ears bleed for 3 weeks straight on every major news outlet.

snip

 

Mrs. Peel

 

This is why I advocate cutting the umbilical cord to lunacy and depravity. Don't keep the goddamned networks on your boxes for 10 hours a day. Don't watch them. Especially don't watch their propaganda disguised as news. If you think they're not influencing you you're wrong. And by watching you're adding to their numbers and helping to stall their demise.

 

I just ordered a handy little device: http://amzn.to/25qygIZ. It's a fully functional, $85 Windows 10 computer. You plug it into your favorite monitor and you can watch everything through your Internet connection. Even baseball. For those of you who can still bear to spend 3.5 hours getting through NFL games you can watch those too for free. Tennis. Even (for the exquisitely bored) golf. 

 

Say no to mainstream media! 

[Kevin125 4,772]

Mrs. Peel.

 

apologies for the digression....

 

I think the reason we don't see DGU cases even reported is that typical TV News Directors are left wing regressives and work for left wing regressives.  They believe it is their moral duty to promote the agenda that guns should go away.  Same for all of the Cable News Channels.  Fox being now being a "part-time" passive advocate for the left.

 

I agree if there were more DGU cases being reported, or more (any?) documentaries covering this, it would go a long way to educate the public on the realities of firearms and the reason the RKBA was written into the Constitution.  Maybe the NRA needs to open a TV production studio and make their own made For TV Movies on these subjects, highlighting the realities that 2A supporters know in order to educate everyone else.  They can have their own cable channel if that's needed or Internet TV channel if they want to be independent.  Preaching to the choir via American Rifleman magazine or at the conventions just isn't getting the job done.  It's not like the general public isn't fascinated by firearms.....   Rambo....  Mission Impossible....  The Matrix....  Any AH-Nold movie..... <Insert Cop Show Name Here>.....   and so on.   Our side needs to be thinking of more insidious methods of getting our message out.   Yes... insidious.  Taking the "high road" ain't working out too well.   The money is out there.  Someone needs to create a good business plan.

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

Bingo, Kevin 125! Editors are only human. They are influenced by their own political bent.

 

I'm just bothered by the relative lack of sophistication of the NRA's marketing program. A dramatic video re-creation and interview of a real-life DGU case - posted to YouTube and going viral would do more for the pro 2A cause than ANY amount of American Rifleman articles. (I remember some case down in Georgia - a mom was at home with her kids, some nutcase was hacking through the front door with an axe, then hacking through the bedroom door... etc. Just INCREDIBLY dramatic. And I thought to myself: we will NEVER see this on Dateline. They should be profiling folks like that).

 

And I'm not making this next point because I'm a woman either - but from a marketing perspective, these folks should be ALL OVER the women's self-defense angle. Not only is it a fast-growing demographic, but on the other side of the spectrum, woman are also the primary drivers behind the anti-gun movement - sheesh, if it was me, I would target the HELL out of that audience. There are more and more single women today than ever before - buying their own homes, sometime acting as head of household for their kids - and women are by nature (by necessity, I would argue) WAY MORE security conscious than men are.  Sooo easy to target (pun intended) that market - I just don't get why I don't see it unfolding as I think it should. But, it's always easy to have all the answers from one's sofa, I guess. LOL.

[Kevin125 4,772]

All your points are valid Mrs. Peel.    Loved that show by the way.

 

It should be a series of shows.  Like Dateline as you mentioned.  Candidates should be breathlessly screaming about how the left wants to make victims out of women while we want to make sure they have what they need to keep themselves safe.  Clinton should be painted as a soul-less villain.  Which in her case is not much of a stretch anyway.

 

The opportunity is screaming out.  But it's definitely not obvious that anyone is paying attention.  Sounds like we need to harass the crap out the NRA and anyone else with the resources to do something with this sort of idea.

[gski1 3]

Folks

 

The NRA (I am a member) does not want to go mainstream. They do want to appeal to everyone. They know that playing the underdog and seemingly always fighting uphill evokes a much more emotional chord than stating facts or debunking liberal lies in the media. Does anyone really believe there are still only 5 million members? They need the members to feel as if they are under siege. it is much easier to collect donations that way.

 

The reality is the NRA is more interested in keeping the cash flow rolling in than defending our rights. What have they done for New Jersey over the past 50 years?

[Zeke 5,504]

Peel is a smert cookie

[Lambo2936 297]

OK, I'll leave the "would you kick her out of bed" discussion to you boys... back to the issue at hand... my primary interest in this topic was because it's just one small example of how the media is winning the battle (IMO) for "hearts and minds". I read a lot of different news sources across the political spectrum, and the consistent editorial choices are astounding:

• Gang slaying? Rarely will you see it reported on major media outlets.
• Defensive gun use? Unless it's unusually dramatic, again, that isn't deemed "newsworthy" either.
• But if a legal gun owner shoots himself or herself in the foot - or god forbid, their kid gets shot - it will be reported until your ears bleed for 3 weeks straight on every major news outlet.

I mean, the movie theater/popcorn incident in Florida - remember that? How could you not? In the days that story was covered, there were probably dozens of DGU's and dozens of gangbangers shooting each other that NO ONE heard about - even though in REALITY those events paint a much more accurate portrait of what's happening in this country with guns (not to mention, of course, the 10's of millions of guns that sat safely at home or were used recreationally). That steady drumbeat of misinformation (or at least grossly disproportionate info) will be catastrophic... it's a cost/benefit analysis that only lists the costs. How can that be helpful?

 

Because people are lazy... they won't research things. They will just believe what they see and hear. It doesn't help that I see "everytown for gun safety" now being REGULARLY cited as a legitimate source across major media (and I'm not talking about HuffPo - I'm saying CNN, NBC, etc.) always with a link pushing readers back to their website. That increases both that group's perceived legitimacy AND their website traffic. This is the real, long-term problem in my assessment. The Bloomberg money to back candidates did not always work, but this steady drip-drip-drip of negative publicity throughout the media is (in the long-term) far more damaging.

 

And I do think that sometimes the NRA is a bit tone-deaf. No offense, but a Charlie Daniel's ad appeals only to one slice of the population - not a broad swath. Why is there a documentary like this one in question being made... and not a documentary profiling DGU cases? Some of those DGU cases are inherently dramatic - but you know 60 minutes will never cover them. So, why isn't the NRA sponsoring some aspiring filmmakers to come up with something? Or sponsoring a contest for best videos of people recounting their DGU stories? I just don't see the same kind of committed, strategic broad-based marketing approach in 2A groups as in gun control groups... and I just think that's a big concern. And, hey I joined the NRA - so I put my money where my mouth is so-to-speak, therefore it's legitimate for me to question how it's being spent. Just my 2 cents.

 

Oh... and to end on more of an up note... have a nice holiday weekend everyone!

 

Mrs. Peel

 

Slight correction... hundreds of millions of guns that sat at home safely. Just shy of 300 million. Only about 900k are carried by police.

Come and take em, i say! Haha

[Lambo2936 297]

Hell, how about the few people that were attacked with a fucking hatchet in the jersey city mall? My fiance worked for the east brunswick branch of spencers gift shop when it happened and had to cover their store after that. Theres a freakin police station IN THE MALL, and the guy managed to sneak in thru the back entrances, avoid security and detectors, and almost kill 2. Again, with a police dept. There. Now what if someone nearby was armed?

 

I say the police go on strike for 48 hrs. Hell, even just the pro gun ones...

Youll see how many liberals realize they should apply for an fid and get a 12g at home too.

I find that most anti gun folks i talk to, as a 22 year old talking to those my age, are completely secluded from reality.

They live under a false umbrella of invincibility because we are in the usa. The wars have always been fought "there". The police will ALWAYS protect us. Why do we need to defend ourselves?

My parents are Israeli. I was born here in the good ol us&a but lived there in 2006 during the 2nd lebanon war and had missiles flying over my head while we were grilling and swimming in the pool. Its a different mentality there; everyone fights for their country there. EVERYONE lost someone. My mother lost a cousin. My uncle has fragments from a grenade embedded in his leg. They ALL fought, and too many died. Because of that, they respect life. RABBI'S (and religious jews with the beards and fun stuff) carry guns. Armed soldiers patrol the streets.

I remember years ago some terrorist hijacked a big ass front end loader and was in the streets flipping cars and trying to kill people. A religious man, beard, long sideburns and all, came up, gun drawn, and emptied the mag into the fucker. That was broadcasted on TV, there.

People here need to get a grip on reality and start realizing shit happens everywhere. We have been lucky, but times are changing and things are only getting worse, here especially. When SHTF in NJ and it takes police 15+ minutes to reapond with enough force to put down an active shooter, maybe then theyll wake up.

[Michael2013 56]

By a conservative estimate, there are at least 100,000 DGU per year in the US.  It is hundreds per day, not mere dozens.  In most cases no shots fired, hence "there is nothing to report"...

[mipafox 438]

NRA adds are intended to get people to join/re-up and get out the vote. They are not intended to convert anyone. In America, we are the majority. If we voted like we were, or joined the NRA, we would get anything we wanted.

[mustang69 505]

People here need to get a grip on reality and start realizing shit happens everywhere. We have been lucky, but times are changing and things are only getting worse, here especially. When SHTF in NJ and it takes police 15+ minutes to reapond with enough force to put down an active shooter, maybe then theyll wake up.

 

Here, what happens is the media gets hold of the story and blames the gun.  Calls for more "common sense" background checks and parades by the Newtown families...

 

Our politicians are bought and paid for.  Common sense need not apply.  Some call me cynical.  I say cynicism is expressed experience.