As many are already aware, liberal journalist-turned-propagandist Katie Couric has been caught red-handed offering the public deceptively-edited propaganda in place of thoughtful journalism. Couric recently produced and starred-in a “documentary” that examines gun violence and the Second Amendment issues so often linked to it. The film, directed by Stephanie Soechtig, begins and ends from a flimsy footing: that gun owners and Second Amendment supporters are obliged to explain why they should retain their rights- an inversion of the premise upon which our Bill of Rights was built.
The film offered a deceptively-edited scene where Couric asked a question about how Americans will stay safe without background checks and the dumbfounded group sat in stunned silence, evidently stumped by the supposedly unassailably logical question.
In reality, the “stunned silence” was “B” roll filmed at various points throughout the two-hour filming of the scene when the Second Amendment supporters were just sitting around. What Couric and Soechtig had edited-out was over four minutes of thoughtful rebuttal and logical discussion that served as answers to her question.
Since being caught, Couric and Soechtig have played the “who, me?” card and maintained that it was a “mistake” that was never intended to mislead anyone.
Reportedly, Couric is upset that the segment has drawn criticism and has called the editing an unnecessary mistake.” Couric has reportedly maintained that she was unaware of the editing, but still stands by the final product.
The source spoke about Couric’s take on the whole controversy and stated,
“This was an unnecessary mistake. It did not represent editing someone’s sentences, there was no factual error, this is not a mistake that is a substantive mistake. It could have been avoided. This was a poor decision that was made and it involves silence.”
But that’s far from the truth—
Even a cursory examination of the excuses shreds them to pieces. In order to believe that Couric was unaware that the “B” roll footage had been inserted, we would have to believe that she never viewed the film during production and never viewed the final cut.
Further, this was not a mistake of “silence.” This was a purposeful deception that centered on omission.
Couric and Soechtig did not replace one scene of silence for another; they swapped-out over four minutes of answers and explanation in exchange for what appeared to be stunned silence from dullards who were bested by a dedicated journalist asking a simple question.
Matthew Continetti at the Washington Free Beacon summarizes the situation nicely:
Her question is met with silence. The activists stare blankly into oblivion. Drool collects in the corners of their mouths. The pause is meant to convey the idiocy, the brutishness, the misplaced priorities and hypocritical paranoia of gun owners. Ah hah, the viewer says. Katie Couric—2009 recipient of the Walter E. Cronkite Special Achievement for National Impact award—she sure showed them! Made the yokels face the consequences of their own selfish absolutism. What a hero—a diva! Bravissima!
Yeah, well, it’s all lies.
Couric offered a clichéd argument, and her subjects responded with a rather sophisticated defense of due process and equal protection under the law. The sorts of things that liberals are known for caring about, at least when criminals and terrorist suspects are concerned. What followed is commonly described as an “exchange of views.” It lasted for several minutes. But because the conversation played against the unwritten script—in which there can be no answer for Couric’s supposedly devastating observation—the film’s editors replaced the sequence with the awkward b-roll.
This was not artistic license. It was deception. Both Soechtig and Couric have attempted to downplay the seriousness of this violation of ethics, but the fact is that once a journalist is caught fabricating and orchestrating a purposeful deception, they can never be trusted again.
Even with unwavering apologies, complete transparency and mea culpas a-plenty, the road back to gaining a shred of public trust is a long road (if it is possible at all).
With an immediate reaction of “so what?” mixed with denial, Couric has sealed her fate. She is not the journalist who took over CBS Evening News. She is now and forever a media hack that turned-in her legacy as a “Walter Cronkite” in exchange for a “Michael Moore.”
May the journalism world turn their back on her and condemn her to shameful obscurity and a tarnished reputation.