Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #1

    Katie Couric faces $12 million lawsuit over gun documentary.

    Source



    Nearly four months after her documentary enraged a Virginia-based gun rights group, Katie Couric now faces a $12 million defamation lawsuit.

    In the documentary "Under the Gun," the former "Today" show host and "CBS Evening News" anchor asks members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), "If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?"

    The question is followed by a long pause with members shown sitting in silence.

    "It looked like we were either ashamed or didn't have an answer, when really we were fine and had some really well articulated answers, never made it," VCDL president Philip Van Cleave said this past spring.

    According to BearingArms.com, the VCDL says "that the filmmakers knowingly and maliciously manufactured the fictional exchange by splicing in footage that the filmmakers took surreptitiously after telling the interviewees to be silent for ten seconds so that recording equipment could be calibrated."

    "The filing also contains side-by-side screenshots of the film’s footage of the VCDL members and anti-gun advocates, alleging that the filmmakers manipulated lighting to cast shadows on the VCDL members and to make them appear sinister and untrustworthy."

    Couric, who initially said she stood by the film's producer and director Stephanie Soechtig, said in June that "I take responsibility for a decision that misrepresented an exchange I had with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League."


    Soechtig previously said the pause after the question was added "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."

    "It was a two hour interview, and one of the questions was purposefully edited to completely change how the answer was," said Van Cleave. "The answer was, you can't stop them, and background checks aren't what people are told that they are. They're not as good as people think they are."

    "I regret that those eight seconds were misleading and that I did not raise my initial concerns more vigorously," Couric said this spring.
    I hope both their carriers are over, dishonest journalism should not be tolerated no matter the subject or what side you stand on.

  2. #2
    Scarab Lord TwoNineMarine's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Man Cave Design School
    Posts
    4,232
    I agree.

    Completely changing the way an answer appears just to push your own agenda is fucking stupid.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.” - General James Mattis

  3. #3
    They say manufacturing in America is dead.

    But American media leads the world in the manufacturing of bullshit and fake outrage.

    Pay up Katie, you vile moonbat.

    Its time to go after people who edit facts to suit their agenda.

    That includes media that edits 911 times and government that edits recordings/transcripts of official meetings.
    MAGA
    When all you do is WIN WIN WIN

  4. #4
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    26,281
    What happeded to getting rid of "PC bullshit" and affirming ones 1st Amendment rights? Or does that only apply with stuff you agree with?

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  5. #5
    Partying in Valhalla
    Annoying's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Socorro, NM, USA
    Posts
    10,657
    Quote Originally Posted by pacox View Post
    What happeded to getting rid of "PC bullshit" and affirming ones 1st Amendment rights? Or does that only apply with stuff you agree with?
    The 1st amendment protects speech from criminal prosecution. Defamation is a civil matter.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by pacox View Post
    What happeded to getting rid of "PC bullshit" and affirming ones 1st Amendment rights? Or does that only apply with stuff you agree with?
    If it was lawsuit against Fox news deliberately altering facts to fit their typical viewers vision, the usual suspects here would be crying out loud in one big chorus about "PC, SJW and regressive left" destroying free speech.

    It's extremely funny.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jtbrig7390 View Post
    True, I was just bored and tired but you are correct.

    Last edited by Thwart; Today at 05:21 PM. Reason: Infracted for flaming
    Quote Originally Posted by epigramx View Post
    millennials were the kids of the 9/11 survivors.

  7. #7
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    26,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Annoying View Post
    The 1st amendment protects speech from criminal prosecution. Defamation is a civil matter.
    Saying that defamation didn't take place, thats for the courts to decide. I just find the case a little bit ironic.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  8. #8
    The Unstoppable Force PC2's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Annoying View Post
    The 1st amendment protects speech from criminal prosecution. Defamation is a civil matter.
    Exactly, defamation/libel is about damage remediation, not free speech.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoNineMarine View Post
    I agree.

    Completely changing the way an answer appears just to push your own agenda is fucking stupid.
    Agreed, although I don't see the lawsuit going anywhere. Unless they can prove that they have been economically affected by the film. If straight up lying in a documentary was illegal, Michael moore would have been in jail or broke a long long time ago.

  10. #10
    Deleted
    Why are the US lawsuit news always baiting due their $ numbers?

  11. #11
    Scarab Lord TwoNineMarine's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Man Cave Design School
    Posts
    4,232
    Quote Originally Posted by supertony51 View Post
    Agreed, although I don't see the lawsuit going anywhere. Unless they can prove that they have been economically affected by the film. If straight up lying in a documentary was illegal, Michael moore would have been in jail or broke a long long time ago.
    Yeah exactly. Perhaps they did lose out on money. I've got no clue. I'm just glad it's going to bring more light on the fact that she lied and was manipulative as a mofo.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.” - General James Mattis

  12. #12
    I am Murloc! WskyDK's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    20 Miles to Texas, 25 to Hell
    Posts
    5,802
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimaryColor View Post
    Exactly, defamation/libel is about damage remediation, not free speech.
    Don't damages have to be proven though?
    Quote Originally Posted by Vaerys View Post
    Gaze upon the field in which I grow my fucks, and see that it is barren.

  13. #13
    Merely a Setback Kaleredar's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    25,555
    So let me get this straight...


    They edited the illumination of shot to make them "look more sinister" (not actually falsifying the shot, mind you, simply playing with levels in photoshop) and added an eight second pause to an interview (Not reordering lines, not truncating the discourse, or any of that.)


    Yeah, "defamation" this aint.


    You can claim it was underhanded to add potential slant, but... adding slant isn't illegal.


    It's unfortunate that some people were triggered by this, but they'd best let their micro-aggressions slide. People disagree with you sometimes and are dicks about it. Best to deal with it, rather than trying to make it so people can't present things you disagree with.
    Last edited by Kaleredar; 2016-09-13 at 11:41 PM.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Linadra View Post
    If it was lawsuit against Fox news deliberately altering facts to fit their typical viewers vision, the usual suspects here would be crying out loud in one big chorus about "PC, SJW and regressive left" destroying free speech.

    It's extremely funny.
    You seem very confused. Liberals are only ones that believe it is okay to lie and obfuscate to push their agendas.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimaryColor View Post
    Exactly, defamation/libel is about damage remediation, not free speech.
    Oh, the 1st Amendment does factor in defamation, but basically just modifies who has to prove what, based on the defamatory statements and who/what they are about.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    So let me get this straight...


    They edited the illumination of shot to make them "look more sinister" (not actually falsifying the shot, mind you, simply playing with levels in photoshop) and added an eight second pause to an interview (Not reordering lines, not truncating the discourse, or any of that.)


    Yeah, "defamation" this aint.


    You can claim it was underhanded to add potential slant, but... adding slant isn't illegal.


    It's unfortunate that some people were triggered by this, but they'd best let their micro-aggressions slide. People disagree with you sometimes and are dicks about it. Best to deal with it, rather than trying to make it so people can't present things you disagree with.
    I guess you missed the first, more obvious part, where they said they told them to be quiet for 10 seconds, then cut out the actual response they gave, so as to make them look like buffoons who had no response?

    Also holy fucking buzzwords. Micro-aggressions? triggered? I seriously can't take you "youth" and your "clever phrases". You all sound like idiots.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    added an eight second pause to an interview (Not reordering lines, not truncating the discourse, or any of that.)
    They asked a question, which the folks then answered. When they aired it, they replaced the answer with another shot of them just sitting there for 8 seconds. They removed their actual answer to replace it with a long pause to make it appear they had no answer.

    Sinister lighting I have no opinion on. :-p
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by pacox View Post
    What happeded to getting rid of "PC bullshit" and affirming ones 1st Amendment rights? Or does that only apply with stuff you agree with?
    Civil != Criminal.

    It's like Chick Fil A and Kaepernick -- they made an opinion. People chose to agree or disagree and subsequently like/dislike them for that opinion. Everyone expressed their rights legally. I'm free to no longer eat at Chick Fil A. I'm also free to think Kaepernick is arguing is just them being whiny bitches. Both of them are free to call me an asshole.

    What they are not allowed to do is defamation. Libel (written) and slander (verbal) are illegal.

    Imagine it like this:

    This is ok: Adam is a meanie poo poo head / cunt waffle / is shit at World of Warcraft / whatever bad mean thing.
    This is ok: Adam said what happened to getting rid of PC bullshit and blah blah.
    This is not ok: Adam is a rapist.
    This is not ok: Adam said to rape my daugher.

    Assuming both of the last two items are false, of course.

    I'm sure you can very easily tell the difference. I originally had your name as the examples but swapped it for Adam because it felt tacky to get the point across. I figured you should be able to tell the point without your name in there and if not then we aren't going to be able to go further in the conversation anyways.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    They asked a question, which the folks then answered. When they aired it, they replaced the answer with another shot of them just sitting there for 8 seconds. They removed their actual answer to replace it with a long pause to make it appear they had no answer.

    Sinister lighting I have no opinion on. :-p
    The lighting is a good method to look for bias. Pick up a magazine and look how it depicts, say, Obama. Is he super dark and angry looking? Or does he look lighter skin and smiling?

    This is a very common tactic.

  19. #19
    The Unstoppable Force PC2's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by WskyDK View Post
    Don't damages have to be proven though?
    Yeah in court you have to draw a very specific arrow from the message and the damage done.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by ElDoorO View Post
    The lighting is a good method to look for bias. Pick up a magazine and look how it depicts, say, Obama. Is he super dark and angry looking? Or does he look lighter skin and smiling?

    This is a very common tactic.
    I don't doubt that they may have done it, I just don't have an opinion on it in regards to a lawsuit for damages.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •